Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced...

75
Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications Report - Final Draft Presented to Appalachian Transportation Institute, Marshall University By Charles W. Berryman, Ph.D., CPC (Co-Principal Investigator) Associate Professor, Department of Construction Management Samy E. G. Elias, Ph.D., PE (Project Coordinator) Professor, Department of Industrial & Management Systems Engineering Maher K. Tadros, Ph.D., PE (Co-Principal Investigator) Professor, Department of Civil Engineering Sherif A. Yehia, Ph.D., PE (Co-Principal Investigator) Research Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Engineering and Technology DECEMBER 2002

Transcript of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced...

Page 1: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications

Report - Final Draft

Presented to

Appalachian Transportation Institute Marshall University

By

Charles W Berryman PhD CPC (Co-Principal Investigator) Associate Professor Department of Construction Management

Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)

Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering

Maher K Tadros PhD PE (Co-Principal Investigator)

Professor Department of Civil Engineering

Sherif A Yehia PhD PE (Co-Principal Investigator)

Research Assistant Professor Department of Civil Engineering

University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Engineering and Technology

DECEMBER 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

11 Problem Statementhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip

12 Objectives

13 Outline and Scope

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

21 Introduction

22 Products from Coal and Combustion

221 Dry Bottom Ash

222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag

223 Fly Ash

2231 Fly Ash Characteristics

23 Methods of Using Fly Ash Use in Concrete

24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes

3 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

32 Strength Activity Index

4 CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

42 Utilization of Fly Ash ndash Possible Applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

44 High strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

5 OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

521 Original Mixtures

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting

Concrete Mix

53 Proposed New Mix

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

5523 Modulus of Flexure

553 Compressive Strength

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

555 Conclusions

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures

561 Concrete Materials

5611 Cement

5612 Fly ash

5613 Aggregates

5614 Superplasticizer

562 Mixture Proportions

563 Procedure

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

565 Material Cost Analysis

566 Conclusions

6 FEASIBILITY STUDY UTILIZATION OF FLY ASH IN REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE ndash FIELD TEST

61 Hypothesis

62 Introduction

63 Field Test Procedure

631 Mix Design in Field Test

632 RCP Manufacturing

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

64 Field Test Result

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

65 Conclusion

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The professionals from Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska contributed a

significant amount of time to this research program Our project team would like to thank

the following individuals for their assistance in making this project successful

Concrete Industries

bull Bob Nordquist President

bull Doug Mohrman Sales Manager

bull Mike Mueller Production Superintendent

bull Bill Shottenkirk Pipe Division Foreman

bull Monte Polivika Assistant Foreman

bull Steve Austin Pipe QC

University of Nebraska

bull Jingyi Zhu graduate research assistant

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

11 Problem Statement

Fly ash is a fine residue that results from the combustion of powdered coal in modern

boiler plants Local power utilities in West Virginia and other states produce coal ash from

the burning of sub-bituminous coal which consists of about 80 to 85 percent pulverized (fly)

ash and 15 to 20 percent bottom ash The ash produced is normally stored in bins disposed

of in landfills or hauled away by a contractor

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has developed the ASTM C

618 Standard for use of fly ash in concrete Generally there are two types of fly ash Class F

and Class C Class C fly ash is produced by burning sub-bituminous coal or lignite It has

pozzolanic cementitious properties due to the presence of free lime which makes it

appropriate for use in concrete mixes Do you want to define Class F fly ash

The amount of fly ash produced by local power utilities in West Virginia in 1998 was

quite high of which only a small percent was utilized The significant amount of ash

produced causes environmental concern and financial liability This is due to difficulty in

finding sufficient landfills for the waste and stringent federal mandated standards of ash

disposal It is estimated that handling storage and disposal of coal ash costs about $300 per

ton This means that power utilities have to spend a significant amount of money to dispose

of the waste resulting in increasing electrical rates for the consumers This increase in

expenditure is in addition to two other potentially costly factors the environmental factor and

the landfill shortage factor

12 Objectives

The objectives of this research project are

To analyze the chemical components and to classify the type of fly ash produced by

West Virginia utilities

To provide the appropriate concrete mix that can utilize fly ash efficiently

To give an overview of possible applications in which fly ash could be utilized in

concrete mixes

To provide a cost analysis for replacing concrete with fly ash

In this research reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is the main focus for applying fly ash to

the concrete mix

13 Outline and Scope

131 Literature review

The UNL research team will search the literature to find the latest advancements in

fly ash utilization in concrete applications

132 Chemical composition of fly ash

Three to five fly ash samples carefully chosen to represent the majority of fly ash

produced in West Virginia will be selected by Marshall University These samples will be

chemically tested to determine their composition and their compatibility with the ASTM C

618 Standard

133 Identify concrete applications for fly ash utilization

Based on the information gathered from the literature review (131) and the fly ash

chemical composition (132) UNL and Marshall University will identify three of the most

promising applications where large volumes of fly ash can be used

Among the possible applications are (1) lightweight masonry blocks (2) concrete

pipes (3) concrete overlay for highway bridges (4) pre-cast retaining walls and (5) pre-

stressed concrete ties

Marshall University will provide a preliminary feasibility study to assist UNL in the

selection of the most promising applications

134 Optimization of concrete mixes with fly ash

UNL will make trial mixes using fly ash and test these mixes for the following

properties (1) fresh concrete properties workability segregation bleeding and air

entrainment and (2) hardened concrete properties strength freeze and thaw resistance and

permeability These concrete mixes will be made with fly ash sand and gravel from West

Virginia Marshall University will send the material to UNL

Since fly ash will be used in more than one application it is expected that the

researchers will recommend a mix for each application

135 Feasibility Study

Upon completion of 134 Marshall University and UNL will prepare a feasibility

study on utilizing fly ash in the predetermined applications The study will consider short-

and long-term effects

136 Recommendations for Implementation Plan

UNL and Marshall University will jointly prepare a plan for implementing the

developed mixes This plan should be submitted discussed and finalized with proposed

users of these mixes eg concrete pipe producers the material divisions of highway

agencies such as the West Virginia Department of Transportation and Nebraska Department

of Roads and concrete masonry producers

137 Final Report

A final report of the project including an executive summary and abstract will be

prepared by UNL The final report will cover the following details (1) chemical composition

of fly ash produced in west Virginia (2) possible applications of fly ash utilization (3)

developed mixes and their properties and (4) recommendations for implementation plans

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

21 Introduction

Fossil fuels are used in modern power plants throughout the world to produce

electrical energy The inorganic excess that remains after pulverized coal is burned is known

as Coal Combustion Byproducts (CCBs) CCBs rapidly accumulate and cause enormous

problems with disposal unless a way to utilize these byproducts can be found

The United States produces most of its electrical energy through the burning of fossil

fuels (mainly coal) in modern power plants Ash is a waste product left after the burning of

many combustible substances and fly ash is the accepted term for the finely divided residue

that results from the combustion of ground coal It is easily disseminated by flue gases

unless checked and collected by suitable devices Fly ash particles are primarily composed of

silica and alumina Secondary ingredients are carbon and oxides of iron calcium

magnesium and sulfur Boiler slag and bottom ash are the heavier and coarser CCBs that fall

to the bottom of the boiler

Energy and environmental considerations in the near future point to greater use of

coal As more utilities are forced to shift from gas and oil to coal as a source for fuel the

available quantities of fly ash will increase Fly ash disposal in landfills has been the most

common means of handling ash Fly ash does not pose environmental concerns that would

limit its potential utilization Many uses of fly ash are being investigated by several

organizations to provide more cost-effective ash management

22 Products from Coal Combustion

The following definitions are given to provide a general perspective of the total by-

products resulting from the combustion of coal in power plants

221 Dry Bottom Ash

Dry bottom ash is the residue from coal burned in dry-bottom boilers and is the

product that falls through open gates Generally it is a well-graded aggregate ranging in size

from the US Standard 19-mm to 75-mm (No200) sieve It is characterized as porous and

susceptible to degradation under compaction and loading Although the aggregate may

contain some densely fused particles its specific gravity ranges between 208 and 273 The

major components are silica ferric oxide and alumina The percentage of bottom ash will

depend on the source of the coal burned (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag

Wet bottom slag is produced when the molten residue in a wet-bottom boiler is

discharged into a water-filled hopper It is smaller in maximum size than dry bottom ash and

the particles are glassy and brittle It is uniformly black in color The specific gravity is

usually around 27 but can range from 26 to 385 depending on the iron oxide content The

components are generally the same as those in dry bottom ash but the amount of each

component will vary depending on the source of the coal (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

223 Fly Ash

Class F is defined in ASTM specification C618 as the fly ash normally produced from

burning anthracite or bituminous coal Under current conditions no appreciable amount of

anthracite coals is used for power generation Thus all Class F fly ash now available is

essentially derived from bituminous coal Class F fly ashes are not self-hardening but

generally have pozzolanic properties This means that in the presence of water the fly ash

particles react with calcium hydroxide(lime) to form cementitious products (Sivasundaram et

al 1990) These cementitious products are chemically very similar to those present in

hydrated Portland cement The pozzolanic reactions occur slowly at normal atmospheric

temperatures Most all fly ashes in the United States before about 1975 were of this type

(Ravina and Mehta 1986)

Class C fly ashes normally result from the burning of sub-bituminous coal and lignite

found in the western United States They have pozzolanic properties but may also be self-

hardening That is when mixed with water they harden by hydration much the same way

portland cement hardens (Sivasundaran et al 1990) In most cases this initial hardening

occurs relatively fast These materials are referred to as being cementitious This type of fly

ash has become available in large quantities in the United States only in the last few years as

the western coalfields have been opened (Ravina and Mehta 1986)

2231 Fly Ash Characteristics

Fly ash is an artificial pozzolan produced when pulverized coal is burned in electric

power plants The glassy (amorphous) spherical particles are the active pozzolanic portion of

fly ash Fly ash is 66 to 68 percent glass The American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) has developed the ASTM C618 Standard for use of fly ash in concrete Generally

there are two types of fly ash class F and Class C Class C fly ash is produced by burning

sub-bituminous coal or lignite It has pozzolanic cementitious properties due to the presence

of free-lime which make it appropriate for use in concrete mixes Class F fly ash readily

reacts with lime (produced when Portland cement hydrates) and alkalis to form a

cementitious compound

Fly ash particles carried out of the boiler by the exhaust gases are extremely variable

but have some characteristics of interest Upon discharge from the furnace the ash particles

vary in size from 05 to 100 micron in diameter The particles are spheroidal have a high

mechanical strength and a range of density from about 3 to less than 06 They have a melting

point above 1000 Celsius and low thermal conductivity and are mostly chemically inert Fly

ash is a very small particle and can float in the air due to its size Fly ash has a variety of

colors and pH due to the volume of chemical ingredients It spans a color range from light tan

to gray to black Increased carbon content causes a darker gray-black tone while increased

iron content tends to produce a tan-colored ash The pH of fly ash contacted with water may

vary from 3 to 12 [11]

Table 21 Summary of fly ash characteristics

Description Details

Percent earning from coal ash residue 10-85

Size 05-100 micron

Densities 3 or less

A melting point Above 1000 Celsius

Color Light tan gray black

PH 3 to 12

Fly ash produced at different power plants or at one plant with different coal sources

may have different colors The particle size and shape characteristics of fly ash depend upon

the source and uniformity of the coal the degree of pulverization prior to burning and the

type of collection system used Rapid cooling of the ash from the molten state as it leaves the

flame causes fly ash to be predominantly noncrystalline (glassy) with minor amounts of

crystalline constituents such as mullite quartz magnetite (or ferrel spinel) and hematite

Other constituents which may be present in high-calcium fly ash include periclase

anhydride lime alkali sulfate melilite merwinite nepheline sodalite C3S and C2A

(Carette and Malhotra 1990)

23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete

Fly ash is used in concrete either as an admixture at the concrete mixer or as an

ingredient in blended cement In the latter case the ratio of fly ash to Portland cement

becomes fixed Generally no adjustment in amounts of cementitious material is made when

blended cement is substituted for regular Portland cement Addition of fly ash at the mixer

affords opportunities for adjusting the ratio of fly ash to cement Although fly ash is

sometimes added to improve workability and replaces fine aggregate in the concrete it is

generally a cementitious material added to replace a portion of the Portland cement that

would normally be used Whether added as a portion of the blended cement or at the mixer

the effect of a particular fly ash with the same cement should be essentially the same for the

same ratios and amounts of cementitious materials (American Concrete Institute

___DATE)

24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes

In order to understand how fly ash reacts in a cement mix it is important to

understand the properties of pozzolan A pozzolan is defined by ASTM as a siliceous or

siliceous and aluminous material which in itself possess little or no cementitious value

However in its finely divided form and in the presence of moisture pozzolan will react

chemically with calcium hydroxide (lime) at ordinary temperatures to form compounds

possessing cementitious properties The word pozzolan has come to mean a lime-seeking

cementing agent (University of Nebraska 2002)

The lime that combines with fly ash to produce strong durable cementitious

compounds comes from the hydration of the Portland cement But when Portland cement

combines with water during setting and hardening lime is liberated from some of the

compounds The amount of lime liberated appears to be about 15 to 20 percent of the cement

weight Under unfavorable circumstances a concrete structure may be subject to

disintegration due to the leaching of this lime from the mass One way to overcome this

problem is to mix or grind some pozzolanic material with the cement (fly ash combined with

lime) to form additional insoluble calcium silicates or cementitious compounds (University

of Nebraska 2002)

The physical size and shape of fly ash particles have a profound effect upon the

properties of concrete in the plastic stage Millions of very small glass beads contribute to

increasing plasticity--usually with less mixing water--and improving placing and finishing

For this reason great improvements in pumping qualities of concrete containing fly ash is

clarified (1) This last sentence doesnrsquot make sense but I canrsquot figure out how to fix it

The contribution of fly ash to sulfate resistance of concrete is also a big advantage of

fly ash Fly ash can improve the resistance of concrete to sulfate attack regardless of the type

of cement used The hydration of Portland cement results in the liberation of calcium

hydroxide (hydrated lime) at about 12 to 20 pounds per bag of cement thus increasing its

permeability In the case of sulfate attack the calcium hydroxide combines with the sulfates

in seawater to produce gypsum Since the newly-produced gypsum occupies a greater

volume than the original calcium hydroxide this results in disruption and disintegration of

the concrete The addition of fly ash is useful in this regard because the silica components of

ash combine with the liberated calcium hydroxide to form stable cementitious compounds

This reduces the amount of calcium hydroxide available for dissolution and thus preserves

the impermeability of the concrete This also means that there is less calcium hydroxide

available for the formation of gypsum and it is this fact that results in the dramatic increase

in sulfate resistance (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash used in large quantities and when stimulated hydraulically by the lime

produced by the hydration of Portland cement acts as an inhibitor of corrosion of steel in

reinforced concrete The extent to which this effect is present in ferrocement is yet to be

determined However an immersion test conducted by the Canadian Bureau of Fisheries

found that a mortar cover of one-sixteenth inch was sufficient to protect the steel from attack

provided that the mortar is of high density and imperviousness (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash in concrete also reduces heat of hydration which is advantageous in some

types of concrete uses such as machinery foundations and other massive structures

(American Concrete Institute 1987)

In the experimental investigation we tested concrete mixes with 40 percent fly ash

replacement by weight This investigation provided an opportunity to compare our results

with previous investigations of Class F fly ash

Class F fly ash has been introduced as a cementitious material in concrete which has

been reported by many investigators Tarun et al (DATE) ndash this reference is not listed at the

end of the chapter studied the incorporation of fly ash Class F and Class C in concrete mixes

for applications in high pavement work The study evaluated mixes with 40 percent Class F

fly ash and 50 percent Class C fly ash Their results for the Class F mixes show that the gain

in compressive strength was greater than the requirement for the mixes without fly ash

Compressive strengths for the mix with 40 percent of Class F fly ash were 2000 psi at 3 days

2500 psi at 7 days 4400 psi at 28 days 5300 psi at 56 days and 5900 psi at 365 days The

freeze and thaw results were 90 percent in excess of durability standards In the rest of the

evaluation results were in excess of or comparable to the concrete without fly ash as a

cementitious material

Langley et al (1992) investigated strength development and temperature rise in large

concrete blocks containing 55 percent low-calcium Class F fly ash A temperature rise in the

hydration of earlier ages in concrete with fly ash was observed One year later the blacks

with the high volume of fly ash exhibited relatively high strength

In another study Langley et al (1989) investigated structural concrete with high

volumes of Class F fly ash The use of 56 percent fly ash in concrete by weight of total

cementitious material resulted in achieving a compressive strength of 3770 psi at 7 days

7121 psi at 14 days and 9137 psi at 28 days Concrete type I was comparable with concrete

type III cement

Tarun and Shiw (DATE) ndash reference not listed investigated characteristics of concrete

by introducing fly ash obtained from various sources The study considered fly ash in the

range of 0 to 100 percent of mass cementitious medium looking at the influence of fly ash on

setting and hardening in concrete The addition of Class C fly ash in concrete was found to

act as a retardant in the setting process The mix with 50 to 60 percent fly ash resulted in the

maximum retardation process

Sivasundaram et al (1990) studied the selection of high-volume fly ash concretes in a

preliminary investigation of Class F fly ash at 58 percent replacement in total cementitious

material They concluded that although high values of fly ash could be used they do not

perform as well as normal concrete mixes It was mentioned that the high dosage of

superplaticizer adds to the materialrsquos workability but that it would likely slow the setting of

certain concrete mixes especially those with high cementitious material content

Ravina et al (1986) investigated ASTM Class F and Class C behavior with 30 and 50

percent fly ash replacement The results showed that the rate of volume of bleeding water

was either higher or the same as in the original mixes without fly ash The setting time was

typically delayed due to the addition of cementitious material such as fly ash Class F fly ash

use resulted in an increase in the rate and the total amount of bleeding However the amount

of setting time an average of two hours was longer with Class C fly ash than with Class F

Carette et al (1993) developed mix proportions for fly ash in concrete using 55 to 60

percent of ASTM Class F fly ash The evaluation of eight different mixes showed good

performance in workability bleeding setting time temperature rise and mechanical

properties

Carette et al (1990) also studied the use of fly ash as a cementitious material with

over 55 percent substituting for cement The investigation looked at the behavior of

mechanical properties of fly ash in cement with a WC of 035 and 030 adding

superplaticizer to get proper workability in the mixes with fly ash in concrete The physical

behavior of the high volume of fly ash was evaluated for particle side distribution non-

evaporable water pore size distribution electron-microscopically observations compressive

strength and modulus of elasticity The WC ratio in a paste of fly ash and cement was found

to correlate with the hydration of cement and the porosity of the paste Fly ash reaction with

CaOH2 between 3 and 7 days begins because of the large volume of fly ash introduced in

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 2: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

11 Problem Statementhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip

12 Objectives

13 Outline and Scope

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

21 Introduction

22 Products from Coal and Combustion

221 Dry Bottom Ash

222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag

223 Fly Ash

2231 Fly Ash Characteristics

23 Methods of Using Fly Ash Use in Concrete

24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes

3 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

32 Strength Activity Index

4 CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

42 Utilization of Fly Ash ndash Possible Applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

44 High strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

5 OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

521 Original Mixtures

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting

Concrete Mix

53 Proposed New Mix

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

5523 Modulus of Flexure

553 Compressive Strength

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

555 Conclusions

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures

561 Concrete Materials

5611 Cement

5612 Fly ash

5613 Aggregates

5614 Superplasticizer

562 Mixture Proportions

563 Procedure

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

565 Material Cost Analysis

566 Conclusions

6 FEASIBILITY STUDY UTILIZATION OF FLY ASH IN REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE ndash FIELD TEST

61 Hypothesis

62 Introduction

63 Field Test Procedure

631 Mix Design in Field Test

632 RCP Manufacturing

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

64 Field Test Result

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

65 Conclusion

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The professionals from Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska contributed a

significant amount of time to this research program Our project team would like to thank

the following individuals for their assistance in making this project successful

Concrete Industries

bull Bob Nordquist President

bull Doug Mohrman Sales Manager

bull Mike Mueller Production Superintendent

bull Bill Shottenkirk Pipe Division Foreman

bull Monte Polivika Assistant Foreman

bull Steve Austin Pipe QC

University of Nebraska

bull Jingyi Zhu graduate research assistant

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

11 Problem Statement

Fly ash is a fine residue that results from the combustion of powdered coal in modern

boiler plants Local power utilities in West Virginia and other states produce coal ash from

the burning of sub-bituminous coal which consists of about 80 to 85 percent pulverized (fly)

ash and 15 to 20 percent bottom ash The ash produced is normally stored in bins disposed

of in landfills or hauled away by a contractor

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has developed the ASTM C

618 Standard for use of fly ash in concrete Generally there are two types of fly ash Class F

and Class C Class C fly ash is produced by burning sub-bituminous coal or lignite It has

pozzolanic cementitious properties due to the presence of free lime which makes it

appropriate for use in concrete mixes Do you want to define Class F fly ash

The amount of fly ash produced by local power utilities in West Virginia in 1998 was

quite high of which only a small percent was utilized The significant amount of ash

produced causes environmental concern and financial liability This is due to difficulty in

finding sufficient landfills for the waste and stringent federal mandated standards of ash

disposal It is estimated that handling storage and disposal of coal ash costs about $300 per

ton This means that power utilities have to spend a significant amount of money to dispose

of the waste resulting in increasing electrical rates for the consumers This increase in

expenditure is in addition to two other potentially costly factors the environmental factor and

the landfill shortage factor

12 Objectives

The objectives of this research project are

To analyze the chemical components and to classify the type of fly ash produced by

West Virginia utilities

To provide the appropriate concrete mix that can utilize fly ash efficiently

To give an overview of possible applications in which fly ash could be utilized in

concrete mixes

To provide a cost analysis for replacing concrete with fly ash

In this research reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is the main focus for applying fly ash to

the concrete mix

13 Outline and Scope

131 Literature review

The UNL research team will search the literature to find the latest advancements in

fly ash utilization in concrete applications

132 Chemical composition of fly ash

Three to five fly ash samples carefully chosen to represent the majority of fly ash

produced in West Virginia will be selected by Marshall University These samples will be

chemically tested to determine their composition and their compatibility with the ASTM C

618 Standard

133 Identify concrete applications for fly ash utilization

Based on the information gathered from the literature review (131) and the fly ash

chemical composition (132) UNL and Marshall University will identify three of the most

promising applications where large volumes of fly ash can be used

Among the possible applications are (1) lightweight masonry blocks (2) concrete

pipes (3) concrete overlay for highway bridges (4) pre-cast retaining walls and (5) pre-

stressed concrete ties

Marshall University will provide a preliminary feasibility study to assist UNL in the

selection of the most promising applications

134 Optimization of concrete mixes with fly ash

UNL will make trial mixes using fly ash and test these mixes for the following

properties (1) fresh concrete properties workability segregation bleeding and air

entrainment and (2) hardened concrete properties strength freeze and thaw resistance and

permeability These concrete mixes will be made with fly ash sand and gravel from West

Virginia Marshall University will send the material to UNL

Since fly ash will be used in more than one application it is expected that the

researchers will recommend a mix for each application

135 Feasibility Study

Upon completion of 134 Marshall University and UNL will prepare a feasibility

study on utilizing fly ash in the predetermined applications The study will consider short-

and long-term effects

136 Recommendations for Implementation Plan

UNL and Marshall University will jointly prepare a plan for implementing the

developed mixes This plan should be submitted discussed and finalized with proposed

users of these mixes eg concrete pipe producers the material divisions of highway

agencies such as the West Virginia Department of Transportation and Nebraska Department

of Roads and concrete masonry producers

137 Final Report

A final report of the project including an executive summary and abstract will be

prepared by UNL The final report will cover the following details (1) chemical composition

of fly ash produced in west Virginia (2) possible applications of fly ash utilization (3)

developed mixes and their properties and (4) recommendations for implementation plans

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

21 Introduction

Fossil fuels are used in modern power plants throughout the world to produce

electrical energy The inorganic excess that remains after pulverized coal is burned is known

as Coal Combustion Byproducts (CCBs) CCBs rapidly accumulate and cause enormous

problems with disposal unless a way to utilize these byproducts can be found

The United States produces most of its electrical energy through the burning of fossil

fuels (mainly coal) in modern power plants Ash is a waste product left after the burning of

many combustible substances and fly ash is the accepted term for the finely divided residue

that results from the combustion of ground coal It is easily disseminated by flue gases

unless checked and collected by suitable devices Fly ash particles are primarily composed of

silica and alumina Secondary ingredients are carbon and oxides of iron calcium

magnesium and sulfur Boiler slag and bottom ash are the heavier and coarser CCBs that fall

to the bottom of the boiler

Energy and environmental considerations in the near future point to greater use of

coal As more utilities are forced to shift from gas and oil to coal as a source for fuel the

available quantities of fly ash will increase Fly ash disposal in landfills has been the most

common means of handling ash Fly ash does not pose environmental concerns that would

limit its potential utilization Many uses of fly ash are being investigated by several

organizations to provide more cost-effective ash management

22 Products from Coal Combustion

The following definitions are given to provide a general perspective of the total by-

products resulting from the combustion of coal in power plants

221 Dry Bottom Ash

Dry bottom ash is the residue from coal burned in dry-bottom boilers and is the

product that falls through open gates Generally it is a well-graded aggregate ranging in size

from the US Standard 19-mm to 75-mm (No200) sieve It is characterized as porous and

susceptible to degradation under compaction and loading Although the aggregate may

contain some densely fused particles its specific gravity ranges between 208 and 273 The

major components are silica ferric oxide and alumina The percentage of bottom ash will

depend on the source of the coal burned (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag

Wet bottom slag is produced when the molten residue in a wet-bottom boiler is

discharged into a water-filled hopper It is smaller in maximum size than dry bottom ash and

the particles are glassy and brittle It is uniformly black in color The specific gravity is

usually around 27 but can range from 26 to 385 depending on the iron oxide content The

components are generally the same as those in dry bottom ash but the amount of each

component will vary depending on the source of the coal (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

223 Fly Ash

Class F is defined in ASTM specification C618 as the fly ash normally produced from

burning anthracite or bituminous coal Under current conditions no appreciable amount of

anthracite coals is used for power generation Thus all Class F fly ash now available is

essentially derived from bituminous coal Class F fly ashes are not self-hardening but

generally have pozzolanic properties This means that in the presence of water the fly ash

particles react with calcium hydroxide(lime) to form cementitious products (Sivasundaram et

al 1990) These cementitious products are chemically very similar to those present in

hydrated Portland cement The pozzolanic reactions occur slowly at normal atmospheric

temperatures Most all fly ashes in the United States before about 1975 were of this type

(Ravina and Mehta 1986)

Class C fly ashes normally result from the burning of sub-bituminous coal and lignite

found in the western United States They have pozzolanic properties but may also be self-

hardening That is when mixed with water they harden by hydration much the same way

portland cement hardens (Sivasundaran et al 1990) In most cases this initial hardening

occurs relatively fast These materials are referred to as being cementitious This type of fly

ash has become available in large quantities in the United States only in the last few years as

the western coalfields have been opened (Ravina and Mehta 1986)

2231 Fly Ash Characteristics

Fly ash is an artificial pozzolan produced when pulverized coal is burned in electric

power plants The glassy (amorphous) spherical particles are the active pozzolanic portion of

fly ash Fly ash is 66 to 68 percent glass The American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) has developed the ASTM C618 Standard for use of fly ash in concrete Generally

there are two types of fly ash class F and Class C Class C fly ash is produced by burning

sub-bituminous coal or lignite It has pozzolanic cementitious properties due to the presence

of free-lime which make it appropriate for use in concrete mixes Class F fly ash readily

reacts with lime (produced when Portland cement hydrates) and alkalis to form a

cementitious compound

Fly ash particles carried out of the boiler by the exhaust gases are extremely variable

but have some characteristics of interest Upon discharge from the furnace the ash particles

vary in size from 05 to 100 micron in diameter The particles are spheroidal have a high

mechanical strength and a range of density from about 3 to less than 06 They have a melting

point above 1000 Celsius and low thermal conductivity and are mostly chemically inert Fly

ash is a very small particle and can float in the air due to its size Fly ash has a variety of

colors and pH due to the volume of chemical ingredients It spans a color range from light tan

to gray to black Increased carbon content causes a darker gray-black tone while increased

iron content tends to produce a tan-colored ash The pH of fly ash contacted with water may

vary from 3 to 12 [11]

Table 21 Summary of fly ash characteristics

Description Details

Percent earning from coal ash residue 10-85

Size 05-100 micron

Densities 3 or less

A melting point Above 1000 Celsius

Color Light tan gray black

PH 3 to 12

Fly ash produced at different power plants or at one plant with different coal sources

may have different colors The particle size and shape characteristics of fly ash depend upon

the source and uniformity of the coal the degree of pulverization prior to burning and the

type of collection system used Rapid cooling of the ash from the molten state as it leaves the

flame causes fly ash to be predominantly noncrystalline (glassy) with minor amounts of

crystalline constituents such as mullite quartz magnetite (or ferrel spinel) and hematite

Other constituents which may be present in high-calcium fly ash include periclase

anhydride lime alkali sulfate melilite merwinite nepheline sodalite C3S and C2A

(Carette and Malhotra 1990)

23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete

Fly ash is used in concrete either as an admixture at the concrete mixer or as an

ingredient in blended cement In the latter case the ratio of fly ash to Portland cement

becomes fixed Generally no adjustment in amounts of cementitious material is made when

blended cement is substituted for regular Portland cement Addition of fly ash at the mixer

affords opportunities for adjusting the ratio of fly ash to cement Although fly ash is

sometimes added to improve workability and replaces fine aggregate in the concrete it is

generally a cementitious material added to replace a portion of the Portland cement that

would normally be used Whether added as a portion of the blended cement or at the mixer

the effect of a particular fly ash with the same cement should be essentially the same for the

same ratios and amounts of cementitious materials (American Concrete Institute

___DATE)

24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes

In order to understand how fly ash reacts in a cement mix it is important to

understand the properties of pozzolan A pozzolan is defined by ASTM as a siliceous or

siliceous and aluminous material which in itself possess little or no cementitious value

However in its finely divided form and in the presence of moisture pozzolan will react

chemically with calcium hydroxide (lime) at ordinary temperatures to form compounds

possessing cementitious properties The word pozzolan has come to mean a lime-seeking

cementing agent (University of Nebraska 2002)

The lime that combines with fly ash to produce strong durable cementitious

compounds comes from the hydration of the Portland cement But when Portland cement

combines with water during setting and hardening lime is liberated from some of the

compounds The amount of lime liberated appears to be about 15 to 20 percent of the cement

weight Under unfavorable circumstances a concrete structure may be subject to

disintegration due to the leaching of this lime from the mass One way to overcome this

problem is to mix or grind some pozzolanic material with the cement (fly ash combined with

lime) to form additional insoluble calcium silicates or cementitious compounds (University

of Nebraska 2002)

The physical size and shape of fly ash particles have a profound effect upon the

properties of concrete in the plastic stage Millions of very small glass beads contribute to

increasing plasticity--usually with less mixing water--and improving placing and finishing

For this reason great improvements in pumping qualities of concrete containing fly ash is

clarified (1) This last sentence doesnrsquot make sense but I canrsquot figure out how to fix it

The contribution of fly ash to sulfate resistance of concrete is also a big advantage of

fly ash Fly ash can improve the resistance of concrete to sulfate attack regardless of the type

of cement used The hydration of Portland cement results in the liberation of calcium

hydroxide (hydrated lime) at about 12 to 20 pounds per bag of cement thus increasing its

permeability In the case of sulfate attack the calcium hydroxide combines with the sulfates

in seawater to produce gypsum Since the newly-produced gypsum occupies a greater

volume than the original calcium hydroxide this results in disruption and disintegration of

the concrete The addition of fly ash is useful in this regard because the silica components of

ash combine with the liberated calcium hydroxide to form stable cementitious compounds

This reduces the amount of calcium hydroxide available for dissolution and thus preserves

the impermeability of the concrete This also means that there is less calcium hydroxide

available for the formation of gypsum and it is this fact that results in the dramatic increase

in sulfate resistance (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash used in large quantities and when stimulated hydraulically by the lime

produced by the hydration of Portland cement acts as an inhibitor of corrosion of steel in

reinforced concrete The extent to which this effect is present in ferrocement is yet to be

determined However an immersion test conducted by the Canadian Bureau of Fisheries

found that a mortar cover of one-sixteenth inch was sufficient to protect the steel from attack

provided that the mortar is of high density and imperviousness (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash in concrete also reduces heat of hydration which is advantageous in some

types of concrete uses such as machinery foundations and other massive structures

(American Concrete Institute 1987)

In the experimental investigation we tested concrete mixes with 40 percent fly ash

replacement by weight This investigation provided an opportunity to compare our results

with previous investigations of Class F fly ash

Class F fly ash has been introduced as a cementitious material in concrete which has

been reported by many investigators Tarun et al (DATE) ndash this reference is not listed at the

end of the chapter studied the incorporation of fly ash Class F and Class C in concrete mixes

for applications in high pavement work The study evaluated mixes with 40 percent Class F

fly ash and 50 percent Class C fly ash Their results for the Class F mixes show that the gain

in compressive strength was greater than the requirement for the mixes without fly ash

Compressive strengths for the mix with 40 percent of Class F fly ash were 2000 psi at 3 days

2500 psi at 7 days 4400 psi at 28 days 5300 psi at 56 days and 5900 psi at 365 days The

freeze and thaw results were 90 percent in excess of durability standards In the rest of the

evaluation results were in excess of or comparable to the concrete without fly ash as a

cementitious material

Langley et al (1992) investigated strength development and temperature rise in large

concrete blocks containing 55 percent low-calcium Class F fly ash A temperature rise in the

hydration of earlier ages in concrete with fly ash was observed One year later the blacks

with the high volume of fly ash exhibited relatively high strength

In another study Langley et al (1989) investigated structural concrete with high

volumes of Class F fly ash The use of 56 percent fly ash in concrete by weight of total

cementitious material resulted in achieving a compressive strength of 3770 psi at 7 days

7121 psi at 14 days and 9137 psi at 28 days Concrete type I was comparable with concrete

type III cement

Tarun and Shiw (DATE) ndash reference not listed investigated characteristics of concrete

by introducing fly ash obtained from various sources The study considered fly ash in the

range of 0 to 100 percent of mass cementitious medium looking at the influence of fly ash on

setting and hardening in concrete The addition of Class C fly ash in concrete was found to

act as a retardant in the setting process The mix with 50 to 60 percent fly ash resulted in the

maximum retardation process

Sivasundaram et al (1990) studied the selection of high-volume fly ash concretes in a

preliminary investigation of Class F fly ash at 58 percent replacement in total cementitious

material They concluded that although high values of fly ash could be used they do not

perform as well as normal concrete mixes It was mentioned that the high dosage of

superplaticizer adds to the materialrsquos workability but that it would likely slow the setting of

certain concrete mixes especially those with high cementitious material content

Ravina et al (1986) investigated ASTM Class F and Class C behavior with 30 and 50

percent fly ash replacement The results showed that the rate of volume of bleeding water

was either higher or the same as in the original mixes without fly ash The setting time was

typically delayed due to the addition of cementitious material such as fly ash Class F fly ash

use resulted in an increase in the rate and the total amount of bleeding However the amount

of setting time an average of two hours was longer with Class C fly ash than with Class F

Carette et al (1993) developed mix proportions for fly ash in concrete using 55 to 60

percent of ASTM Class F fly ash The evaluation of eight different mixes showed good

performance in workability bleeding setting time temperature rise and mechanical

properties

Carette et al (1990) also studied the use of fly ash as a cementitious material with

over 55 percent substituting for cement The investigation looked at the behavior of

mechanical properties of fly ash in cement with a WC of 035 and 030 adding

superplaticizer to get proper workability in the mixes with fly ash in concrete The physical

behavior of the high volume of fly ash was evaluated for particle side distribution non-

evaporable water pore size distribution electron-microscopically observations compressive

strength and modulus of elasticity The WC ratio in a paste of fly ash and cement was found

to correlate with the hydration of cement and the porosity of the paste Fly ash reaction with

CaOH2 between 3 and 7 days begins because of the large volume of fly ash introduced in

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 3: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

44 High strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

5 OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

521 Original Mixtures

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting

Concrete Mix

53 Proposed New Mix

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

5523 Modulus of Flexure

553 Compressive Strength

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

555 Conclusions

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures

561 Concrete Materials

5611 Cement

5612 Fly ash

5613 Aggregates

5614 Superplasticizer

562 Mixture Proportions

563 Procedure

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

565 Material Cost Analysis

566 Conclusions

6 FEASIBILITY STUDY UTILIZATION OF FLY ASH IN REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE ndash FIELD TEST

61 Hypothesis

62 Introduction

63 Field Test Procedure

631 Mix Design in Field Test

632 RCP Manufacturing

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

64 Field Test Result

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

65 Conclusion

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The professionals from Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska contributed a

significant amount of time to this research program Our project team would like to thank

the following individuals for their assistance in making this project successful

Concrete Industries

bull Bob Nordquist President

bull Doug Mohrman Sales Manager

bull Mike Mueller Production Superintendent

bull Bill Shottenkirk Pipe Division Foreman

bull Monte Polivika Assistant Foreman

bull Steve Austin Pipe QC

University of Nebraska

bull Jingyi Zhu graduate research assistant

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

11 Problem Statement

Fly ash is a fine residue that results from the combustion of powdered coal in modern

boiler plants Local power utilities in West Virginia and other states produce coal ash from

the burning of sub-bituminous coal which consists of about 80 to 85 percent pulverized (fly)

ash and 15 to 20 percent bottom ash The ash produced is normally stored in bins disposed

of in landfills or hauled away by a contractor

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has developed the ASTM C

618 Standard for use of fly ash in concrete Generally there are two types of fly ash Class F

and Class C Class C fly ash is produced by burning sub-bituminous coal or lignite It has

pozzolanic cementitious properties due to the presence of free lime which makes it

appropriate for use in concrete mixes Do you want to define Class F fly ash

The amount of fly ash produced by local power utilities in West Virginia in 1998 was

quite high of which only a small percent was utilized The significant amount of ash

produced causes environmental concern and financial liability This is due to difficulty in

finding sufficient landfills for the waste and stringent federal mandated standards of ash

disposal It is estimated that handling storage and disposal of coal ash costs about $300 per

ton This means that power utilities have to spend a significant amount of money to dispose

of the waste resulting in increasing electrical rates for the consumers This increase in

expenditure is in addition to two other potentially costly factors the environmental factor and

the landfill shortage factor

12 Objectives

The objectives of this research project are

To analyze the chemical components and to classify the type of fly ash produced by

West Virginia utilities

To provide the appropriate concrete mix that can utilize fly ash efficiently

To give an overview of possible applications in which fly ash could be utilized in

concrete mixes

To provide a cost analysis for replacing concrete with fly ash

In this research reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is the main focus for applying fly ash to

the concrete mix

13 Outline and Scope

131 Literature review

The UNL research team will search the literature to find the latest advancements in

fly ash utilization in concrete applications

132 Chemical composition of fly ash

Three to five fly ash samples carefully chosen to represent the majority of fly ash

produced in West Virginia will be selected by Marshall University These samples will be

chemically tested to determine their composition and their compatibility with the ASTM C

618 Standard

133 Identify concrete applications for fly ash utilization

Based on the information gathered from the literature review (131) and the fly ash

chemical composition (132) UNL and Marshall University will identify three of the most

promising applications where large volumes of fly ash can be used

Among the possible applications are (1) lightweight masonry blocks (2) concrete

pipes (3) concrete overlay for highway bridges (4) pre-cast retaining walls and (5) pre-

stressed concrete ties

Marshall University will provide a preliminary feasibility study to assist UNL in the

selection of the most promising applications

134 Optimization of concrete mixes with fly ash

UNL will make trial mixes using fly ash and test these mixes for the following

properties (1) fresh concrete properties workability segregation bleeding and air

entrainment and (2) hardened concrete properties strength freeze and thaw resistance and

permeability These concrete mixes will be made with fly ash sand and gravel from West

Virginia Marshall University will send the material to UNL

Since fly ash will be used in more than one application it is expected that the

researchers will recommend a mix for each application

135 Feasibility Study

Upon completion of 134 Marshall University and UNL will prepare a feasibility

study on utilizing fly ash in the predetermined applications The study will consider short-

and long-term effects

136 Recommendations for Implementation Plan

UNL and Marshall University will jointly prepare a plan for implementing the

developed mixes This plan should be submitted discussed and finalized with proposed

users of these mixes eg concrete pipe producers the material divisions of highway

agencies such as the West Virginia Department of Transportation and Nebraska Department

of Roads and concrete masonry producers

137 Final Report

A final report of the project including an executive summary and abstract will be

prepared by UNL The final report will cover the following details (1) chemical composition

of fly ash produced in west Virginia (2) possible applications of fly ash utilization (3)

developed mixes and their properties and (4) recommendations for implementation plans

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

21 Introduction

Fossil fuels are used in modern power plants throughout the world to produce

electrical energy The inorganic excess that remains after pulverized coal is burned is known

as Coal Combustion Byproducts (CCBs) CCBs rapidly accumulate and cause enormous

problems with disposal unless a way to utilize these byproducts can be found

The United States produces most of its electrical energy through the burning of fossil

fuels (mainly coal) in modern power plants Ash is a waste product left after the burning of

many combustible substances and fly ash is the accepted term for the finely divided residue

that results from the combustion of ground coal It is easily disseminated by flue gases

unless checked and collected by suitable devices Fly ash particles are primarily composed of

silica and alumina Secondary ingredients are carbon and oxides of iron calcium

magnesium and sulfur Boiler slag and bottom ash are the heavier and coarser CCBs that fall

to the bottom of the boiler

Energy and environmental considerations in the near future point to greater use of

coal As more utilities are forced to shift from gas and oil to coal as a source for fuel the

available quantities of fly ash will increase Fly ash disposal in landfills has been the most

common means of handling ash Fly ash does not pose environmental concerns that would

limit its potential utilization Many uses of fly ash are being investigated by several

organizations to provide more cost-effective ash management

22 Products from Coal Combustion

The following definitions are given to provide a general perspective of the total by-

products resulting from the combustion of coal in power plants

221 Dry Bottom Ash

Dry bottom ash is the residue from coal burned in dry-bottom boilers and is the

product that falls through open gates Generally it is a well-graded aggregate ranging in size

from the US Standard 19-mm to 75-mm (No200) sieve It is characterized as porous and

susceptible to degradation under compaction and loading Although the aggregate may

contain some densely fused particles its specific gravity ranges between 208 and 273 The

major components are silica ferric oxide and alumina The percentage of bottom ash will

depend on the source of the coal burned (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag

Wet bottom slag is produced when the molten residue in a wet-bottom boiler is

discharged into a water-filled hopper It is smaller in maximum size than dry bottom ash and

the particles are glassy and brittle It is uniformly black in color The specific gravity is

usually around 27 but can range from 26 to 385 depending on the iron oxide content The

components are generally the same as those in dry bottom ash but the amount of each

component will vary depending on the source of the coal (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

223 Fly Ash

Class F is defined in ASTM specification C618 as the fly ash normally produced from

burning anthracite or bituminous coal Under current conditions no appreciable amount of

anthracite coals is used for power generation Thus all Class F fly ash now available is

essentially derived from bituminous coal Class F fly ashes are not self-hardening but

generally have pozzolanic properties This means that in the presence of water the fly ash

particles react with calcium hydroxide(lime) to form cementitious products (Sivasundaram et

al 1990) These cementitious products are chemically very similar to those present in

hydrated Portland cement The pozzolanic reactions occur slowly at normal atmospheric

temperatures Most all fly ashes in the United States before about 1975 were of this type

(Ravina and Mehta 1986)

Class C fly ashes normally result from the burning of sub-bituminous coal and lignite

found in the western United States They have pozzolanic properties but may also be self-

hardening That is when mixed with water they harden by hydration much the same way

portland cement hardens (Sivasundaran et al 1990) In most cases this initial hardening

occurs relatively fast These materials are referred to as being cementitious This type of fly

ash has become available in large quantities in the United States only in the last few years as

the western coalfields have been opened (Ravina and Mehta 1986)

2231 Fly Ash Characteristics

Fly ash is an artificial pozzolan produced when pulverized coal is burned in electric

power plants The glassy (amorphous) spherical particles are the active pozzolanic portion of

fly ash Fly ash is 66 to 68 percent glass The American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) has developed the ASTM C618 Standard for use of fly ash in concrete Generally

there are two types of fly ash class F and Class C Class C fly ash is produced by burning

sub-bituminous coal or lignite It has pozzolanic cementitious properties due to the presence

of free-lime which make it appropriate for use in concrete mixes Class F fly ash readily

reacts with lime (produced when Portland cement hydrates) and alkalis to form a

cementitious compound

Fly ash particles carried out of the boiler by the exhaust gases are extremely variable

but have some characteristics of interest Upon discharge from the furnace the ash particles

vary in size from 05 to 100 micron in diameter The particles are spheroidal have a high

mechanical strength and a range of density from about 3 to less than 06 They have a melting

point above 1000 Celsius and low thermal conductivity and are mostly chemically inert Fly

ash is a very small particle and can float in the air due to its size Fly ash has a variety of

colors and pH due to the volume of chemical ingredients It spans a color range from light tan

to gray to black Increased carbon content causes a darker gray-black tone while increased

iron content tends to produce a tan-colored ash The pH of fly ash contacted with water may

vary from 3 to 12 [11]

Table 21 Summary of fly ash characteristics

Description Details

Percent earning from coal ash residue 10-85

Size 05-100 micron

Densities 3 or less

A melting point Above 1000 Celsius

Color Light tan gray black

PH 3 to 12

Fly ash produced at different power plants or at one plant with different coal sources

may have different colors The particle size and shape characteristics of fly ash depend upon

the source and uniformity of the coal the degree of pulverization prior to burning and the

type of collection system used Rapid cooling of the ash from the molten state as it leaves the

flame causes fly ash to be predominantly noncrystalline (glassy) with minor amounts of

crystalline constituents such as mullite quartz magnetite (or ferrel spinel) and hematite

Other constituents which may be present in high-calcium fly ash include periclase

anhydride lime alkali sulfate melilite merwinite nepheline sodalite C3S and C2A

(Carette and Malhotra 1990)

23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete

Fly ash is used in concrete either as an admixture at the concrete mixer or as an

ingredient in blended cement In the latter case the ratio of fly ash to Portland cement

becomes fixed Generally no adjustment in amounts of cementitious material is made when

blended cement is substituted for regular Portland cement Addition of fly ash at the mixer

affords opportunities for adjusting the ratio of fly ash to cement Although fly ash is

sometimes added to improve workability and replaces fine aggregate in the concrete it is

generally a cementitious material added to replace a portion of the Portland cement that

would normally be used Whether added as a portion of the blended cement or at the mixer

the effect of a particular fly ash with the same cement should be essentially the same for the

same ratios and amounts of cementitious materials (American Concrete Institute

___DATE)

24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes

In order to understand how fly ash reacts in a cement mix it is important to

understand the properties of pozzolan A pozzolan is defined by ASTM as a siliceous or

siliceous and aluminous material which in itself possess little or no cementitious value

However in its finely divided form and in the presence of moisture pozzolan will react

chemically with calcium hydroxide (lime) at ordinary temperatures to form compounds

possessing cementitious properties The word pozzolan has come to mean a lime-seeking

cementing agent (University of Nebraska 2002)

The lime that combines with fly ash to produce strong durable cementitious

compounds comes from the hydration of the Portland cement But when Portland cement

combines with water during setting and hardening lime is liberated from some of the

compounds The amount of lime liberated appears to be about 15 to 20 percent of the cement

weight Under unfavorable circumstances a concrete structure may be subject to

disintegration due to the leaching of this lime from the mass One way to overcome this

problem is to mix or grind some pozzolanic material with the cement (fly ash combined with

lime) to form additional insoluble calcium silicates or cementitious compounds (University

of Nebraska 2002)

The physical size and shape of fly ash particles have a profound effect upon the

properties of concrete in the plastic stage Millions of very small glass beads contribute to

increasing plasticity--usually with less mixing water--and improving placing and finishing

For this reason great improvements in pumping qualities of concrete containing fly ash is

clarified (1) This last sentence doesnrsquot make sense but I canrsquot figure out how to fix it

The contribution of fly ash to sulfate resistance of concrete is also a big advantage of

fly ash Fly ash can improve the resistance of concrete to sulfate attack regardless of the type

of cement used The hydration of Portland cement results in the liberation of calcium

hydroxide (hydrated lime) at about 12 to 20 pounds per bag of cement thus increasing its

permeability In the case of sulfate attack the calcium hydroxide combines with the sulfates

in seawater to produce gypsum Since the newly-produced gypsum occupies a greater

volume than the original calcium hydroxide this results in disruption and disintegration of

the concrete The addition of fly ash is useful in this regard because the silica components of

ash combine with the liberated calcium hydroxide to form stable cementitious compounds

This reduces the amount of calcium hydroxide available for dissolution and thus preserves

the impermeability of the concrete This also means that there is less calcium hydroxide

available for the formation of gypsum and it is this fact that results in the dramatic increase

in sulfate resistance (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash used in large quantities and when stimulated hydraulically by the lime

produced by the hydration of Portland cement acts as an inhibitor of corrosion of steel in

reinforced concrete The extent to which this effect is present in ferrocement is yet to be

determined However an immersion test conducted by the Canadian Bureau of Fisheries

found that a mortar cover of one-sixteenth inch was sufficient to protect the steel from attack

provided that the mortar is of high density and imperviousness (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash in concrete also reduces heat of hydration which is advantageous in some

types of concrete uses such as machinery foundations and other massive structures

(American Concrete Institute 1987)

In the experimental investigation we tested concrete mixes with 40 percent fly ash

replacement by weight This investigation provided an opportunity to compare our results

with previous investigations of Class F fly ash

Class F fly ash has been introduced as a cementitious material in concrete which has

been reported by many investigators Tarun et al (DATE) ndash this reference is not listed at the

end of the chapter studied the incorporation of fly ash Class F and Class C in concrete mixes

for applications in high pavement work The study evaluated mixes with 40 percent Class F

fly ash and 50 percent Class C fly ash Their results for the Class F mixes show that the gain

in compressive strength was greater than the requirement for the mixes without fly ash

Compressive strengths for the mix with 40 percent of Class F fly ash were 2000 psi at 3 days

2500 psi at 7 days 4400 psi at 28 days 5300 psi at 56 days and 5900 psi at 365 days The

freeze and thaw results were 90 percent in excess of durability standards In the rest of the

evaluation results were in excess of or comparable to the concrete without fly ash as a

cementitious material

Langley et al (1992) investigated strength development and temperature rise in large

concrete blocks containing 55 percent low-calcium Class F fly ash A temperature rise in the

hydration of earlier ages in concrete with fly ash was observed One year later the blacks

with the high volume of fly ash exhibited relatively high strength

In another study Langley et al (1989) investigated structural concrete with high

volumes of Class F fly ash The use of 56 percent fly ash in concrete by weight of total

cementitious material resulted in achieving a compressive strength of 3770 psi at 7 days

7121 psi at 14 days and 9137 psi at 28 days Concrete type I was comparable with concrete

type III cement

Tarun and Shiw (DATE) ndash reference not listed investigated characteristics of concrete

by introducing fly ash obtained from various sources The study considered fly ash in the

range of 0 to 100 percent of mass cementitious medium looking at the influence of fly ash on

setting and hardening in concrete The addition of Class C fly ash in concrete was found to

act as a retardant in the setting process The mix with 50 to 60 percent fly ash resulted in the

maximum retardation process

Sivasundaram et al (1990) studied the selection of high-volume fly ash concretes in a

preliminary investigation of Class F fly ash at 58 percent replacement in total cementitious

material They concluded that although high values of fly ash could be used they do not

perform as well as normal concrete mixes It was mentioned that the high dosage of

superplaticizer adds to the materialrsquos workability but that it would likely slow the setting of

certain concrete mixes especially those with high cementitious material content

Ravina et al (1986) investigated ASTM Class F and Class C behavior with 30 and 50

percent fly ash replacement The results showed that the rate of volume of bleeding water

was either higher or the same as in the original mixes without fly ash The setting time was

typically delayed due to the addition of cementitious material such as fly ash Class F fly ash

use resulted in an increase in the rate and the total amount of bleeding However the amount

of setting time an average of two hours was longer with Class C fly ash than with Class F

Carette et al (1993) developed mix proportions for fly ash in concrete using 55 to 60

percent of ASTM Class F fly ash The evaluation of eight different mixes showed good

performance in workability bleeding setting time temperature rise and mechanical

properties

Carette et al (1990) also studied the use of fly ash as a cementitious material with

over 55 percent substituting for cement The investigation looked at the behavior of

mechanical properties of fly ash in cement with a WC of 035 and 030 adding

superplaticizer to get proper workability in the mixes with fly ash in concrete The physical

behavior of the high volume of fly ash was evaluated for particle side distribution non-

evaporable water pore size distribution electron-microscopically observations compressive

strength and modulus of elasticity The WC ratio in a paste of fly ash and cement was found

to correlate with the hydration of cement and the porosity of the paste Fly ash reaction with

CaOH2 between 3 and 7 days begins because of the large volume of fly ash introduced in

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 4: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures

561 Concrete Materials

5611 Cement

5612 Fly ash

5613 Aggregates

5614 Superplasticizer

562 Mixture Proportions

563 Procedure

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

565 Material Cost Analysis

566 Conclusions

6 FEASIBILITY STUDY UTILIZATION OF FLY ASH IN REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE ndash FIELD TEST

61 Hypothesis

62 Introduction

63 Field Test Procedure

631 Mix Design in Field Test

632 RCP Manufacturing

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

64 Field Test Result

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

65 Conclusion

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The professionals from Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska contributed a

significant amount of time to this research program Our project team would like to thank

the following individuals for their assistance in making this project successful

Concrete Industries

bull Bob Nordquist President

bull Doug Mohrman Sales Manager

bull Mike Mueller Production Superintendent

bull Bill Shottenkirk Pipe Division Foreman

bull Monte Polivika Assistant Foreman

bull Steve Austin Pipe QC

University of Nebraska

bull Jingyi Zhu graduate research assistant

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

11 Problem Statement

Fly ash is a fine residue that results from the combustion of powdered coal in modern

boiler plants Local power utilities in West Virginia and other states produce coal ash from

the burning of sub-bituminous coal which consists of about 80 to 85 percent pulverized (fly)

ash and 15 to 20 percent bottom ash The ash produced is normally stored in bins disposed

of in landfills or hauled away by a contractor

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has developed the ASTM C

618 Standard for use of fly ash in concrete Generally there are two types of fly ash Class F

and Class C Class C fly ash is produced by burning sub-bituminous coal or lignite It has

pozzolanic cementitious properties due to the presence of free lime which makes it

appropriate for use in concrete mixes Do you want to define Class F fly ash

The amount of fly ash produced by local power utilities in West Virginia in 1998 was

quite high of which only a small percent was utilized The significant amount of ash

produced causes environmental concern and financial liability This is due to difficulty in

finding sufficient landfills for the waste and stringent federal mandated standards of ash

disposal It is estimated that handling storage and disposal of coal ash costs about $300 per

ton This means that power utilities have to spend a significant amount of money to dispose

of the waste resulting in increasing electrical rates for the consumers This increase in

expenditure is in addition to two other potentially costly factors the environmental factor and

the landfill shortage factor

12 Objectives

The objectives of this research project are

To analyze the chemical components and to classify the type of fly ash produced by

West Virginia utilities

To provide the appropriate concrete mix that can utilize fly ash efficiently

To give an overview of possible applications in which fly ash could be utilized in

concrete mixes

To provide a cost analysis for replacing concrete with fly ash

In this research reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is the main focus for applying fly ash to

the concrete mix

13 Outline and Scope

131 Literature review

The UNL research team will search the literature to find the latest advancements in

fly ash utilization in concrete applications

132 Chemical composition of fly ash

Three to five fly ash samples carefully chosen to represent the majority of fly ash

produced in West Virginia will be selected by Marshall University These samples will be

chemically tested to determine their composition and their compatibility with the ASTM C

618 Standard

133 Identify concrete applications for fly ash utilization

Based on the information gathered from the literature review (131) and the fly ash

chemical composition (132) UNL and Marshall University will identify three of the most

promising applications where large volumes of fly ash can be used

Among the possible applications are (1) lightweight masonry blocks (2) concrete

pipes (3) concrete overlay for highway bridges (4) pre-cast retaining walls and (5) pre-

stressed concrete ties

Marshall University will provide a preliminary feasibility study to assist UNL in the

selection of the most promising applications

134 Optimization of concrete mixes with fly ash

UNL will make trial mixes using fly ash and test these mixes for the following

properties (1) fresh concrete properties workability segregation bleeding and air

entrainment and (2) hardened concrete properties strength freeze and thaw resistance and

permeability These concrete mixes will be made with fly ash sand and gravel from West

Virginia Marshall University will send the material to UNL

Since fly ash will be used in more than one application it is expected that the

researchers will recommend a mix for each application

135 Feasibility Study

Upon completion of 134 Marshall University and UNL will prepare a feasibility

study on utilizing fly ash in the predetermined applications The study will consider short-

and long-term effects

136 Recommendations for Implementation Plan

UNL and Marshall University will jointly prepare a plan for implementing the

developed mixes This plan should be submitted discussed and finalized with proposed

users of these mixes eg concrete pipe producers the material divisions of highway

agencies such as the West Virginia Department of Transportation and Nebraska Department

of Roads and concrete masonry producers

137 Final Report

A final report of the project including an executive summary and abstract will be

prepared by UNL The final report will cover the following details (1) chemical composition

of fly ash produced in west Virginia (2) possible applications of fly ash utilization (3)

developed mixes and their properties and (4) recommendations for implementation plans

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

21 Introduction

Fossil fuels are used in modern power plants throughout the world to produce

electrical energy The inorganic excess that remains after pulverized coal is burned is known

as Coal Combustion Byproducts (CCBs) CCBs rapidly accumulate and cause enormous

problems with disposal unless a way to utilize these byproducts can be found

The United States produces most of its electrical energy through the burning of fossil

fuels (mainly coal) in modern power plants Ash is a waste product left after the burning of

many combustible substances and fly ash is the accepted term for the finely divided residue

that results from the combustion of ground coal It is easily disseminated by flue gases

unless checked and collected by suitable devices Fly ash particles are primarily composed of

silica and alumina Secondary ingredients are carbon and oxides of iron calcium

magnesium and sulfur Boiler slag and bottom ash are the heavier and coarser CCBs that fall

to the bottom of the boiler

Energy and environmental considerations in the near future point to greater use of

coal As more utilities are forced to shift from gas and oil to coal as a source for fuel the

available quantities of fly ash will increase Fly ash disposal in landfills has been the most

common means of handling ash Fly ash does not pose environmental concerns that would

limit its potential utilization Many uses of fly ash are being investigated by several

organizations to provide more cost-effective ash management

22 Products from Coal Combustion

The following definitions are given to provide a general perspective of the total by-

products resulting from the combustion of coal in power plants

221 Dry Bottom Ash

Dry bottom ash is the residue from coal burned in dry-bottom boilers and is the

product that falls through open gates Generally it is a well-graded aggregate ranging in size

from the US Standard 19-mm to 75-mm (No200) sieve It is characterized as porous and

susceptible to degradation under compaction and loading Although the aggregate may

contain some densely fused particles its specific gravity ranges between 208 and 273 The

major components are silica ferric oxide and alumina The percentage of bottom ash will

depend on the source of the coal burned (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag

Wet bottom slag is produced when the molten residue in a wet-bottom boiler is

discharged into a water-filled hopper It is smaller in maximum size than dry bottom ash and

the particles are glassy and brittle It is uniformly black in color The specific gravity is

usually around 27 but can range from 26 to 385 depending on the iron oxide content The

components are generally the same as those in dry bottom ash but the amount of each

component will vary depending on the source of the coal (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

223 Fly Ash

Class F is defined in ASTM specification C618 as the fly ash normally produced from

burning anthracite or bituminous coal Under current conditions no appreciable amount of

anthracite coals is used for power generation Thus all Class F fly ash now available is

essentially derived from bituminous coal Class F fly ashes are not self-hardening but

generally have pozzolanic properties This means that in the presence of water the fly ash

particles react with calcium hydroxide(lime) to form cementitious products (Sivasundaram et

al 1990) These cementitious products are chemically very similar to those present in

hydrated Portland cement The pozzolanic reactions occur slowly at normal atmospheric

temperatures Most all fly ashes in the United States before about 1975 were of this type

(Ravina and Mehta 1986)

Class C fly ashes normally result from the burning of sub-bituminous coal and lignite

found in the western United States They have pozzolanic properties but may also be self-

hardening That is when mixed with water they harden by hydration much the same way

portland cement hardens (Sivasundaran et al 1990) In most cases this initial hardening

occurs relatively fast These materials are referred to as being cementitious This type of fly

ash has become available in large quantities in the United States only in the last few years as

the western coalfields have been opened (Ravina and Mehta 1986)

2231 Fly Ash Characteristics

Fly ash is an artificial pozzolan produced when pulverized coal is burned in electric

power plants The glassy (amorphous) spherical particles are the active pozzolanic portion of

fly ash Fly ash is 66 to 68 percent glass The American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) has developed the ASTM C618 Standard for use of fly ash in concrete Generally

there are two types of fly ash class F and Class C Class C fly ash is produced by burning

sub-bituminous coal or lignite It has pozzolanic cementitious properties due to the presence

of free-lime which make it appropriate for use in concrete mixes Class F fly ash readily

reacts with lime (produced when Portland cement hydrates) and alkalis to form a

cementitious compound

Fly ash particles carried out of the boiler by the exhaust gases are extremely variable

but have some characteristics of interest Upon discharge from the furnace the ash particles

vary in size from 05 to 100 micron in diameter The particles are spheroidal have a high

mechanical strength and a range of density from about 3 to less than 06 They have a melting

point above 1000 Celsius and low thermal conductivity and are mostly chemically inert Fly

ash is a very small particle and can float in the air due to its size Fly ash has a variety of

colors and pH due to the volume of chemical ingredients It spans a color range from light tan

to gray to black Increased carbon content causes a darker gray-black tone while increased

iron content tends to produce a tan-colored ash The pH of fly ash contacted with water may

vary from 3 to 12 [11]

Table 21 Summary of fly ash characteristics

Description Details

Percent earning from coal ash residue 10-85

Size 05-100 micron

Densities 3 or less

A melting point Above 1000 Celsius

Color Light tan gray black

PH 3 to 12

Fly ash produced at different power plants or at one plant with different coal sources

may have different colors The particle size and shape characteristics of fly ash depend upon

the source and uniformity of the coal the degree of pulverization prior to burning and the

type of collection system used Rapid cooling of the ash from the molten state as it leaves the

flame causes fly ash to be predominantly noncrystalline (glassy) with minor amounts of

crystalline constituents such as mullite quartz magnetite (or ferrel spinel) and hematite

Other constituents which may be present in high-calcium fly ash include periclase

anhydride lime alkali sulfate melilite merwinite nepheline sodalite C3S and C2A

(Carette and Malhotra 1990)

23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete

Fly ash is used in concrete either as an admixture at the concrete mixer or as an

ingredient in blended cement In the latter case the ratio of fly ash to Portland cement

becomes fixed Generally no adjustment in amounts of cementitious material is made when

blended cement is substituted for regular Portland cement Addition of fly ash at the mixer

affords opportunities for adjusting the ratio of fly ash to cement Although fly ash is

sometimes added to improve workability and replaces fine aggregate in the concrete it is

generally a cementitious material added to replace a portion of the Portland cement that

would normally be used Whether added as a portion of the blended cement or at the mixer

the effect of a particular fly ash with the same cement should be essentially the same for the

same ratios and amounts of cementitious materials (American Concrete Institute

___DATE)

24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes

In order to understand how fly ash reacts in a cement mix it is important to

understand the properties of pozzolan A pozzolan is defined by ASTM as a siliceous or

siliceous and aluminous material which in itself possess little or no cementitious value

However in its finely divided form and in the presence of moisture pozzolan will react

chemically with calcium hydroxide (lime) at ordinary temperatures to form compounds

possessing cementitious properties The word pozzolan has come to mean a lime-seeking

cementing agent (University of Nebraska 2002)

The lime that combines with fly ash to produce strong durable cementitious

compounds comes from the hydration of the Portland cement But when Portland cement

combines with water during setting and hardening lime is liberated from some of the

compounds The amount of lime liberated appears to be about 15 to 20 percent of the cement

weight Under unfavorable circumstances a concrete structure may be subject to

disintegration due to the leaching of this lime from the mass One way to overcome this

problem is to mix or grind some pozzolanic material with the cement (fly ash combined with

lime) to form additional insoluble calcium silicates or cementitious compounds (University

of Nebraska 2002)

The physical size and shape of fly ash particles have a profound effect upon the

properties of concrete in the plastic stage Millions of very small glass beads contribute to

increasing plasticity--usually with less mixing water--and improving placing and finishing

For this reason great improvements in pumping qualities of concrete containing fly ash is

clarified (1) This last sentence doesnrsquot make sense but I canrsquot figure out how to fix it

The contribution of fly ash to sulfate resistance of concrete is also a big advantage of

fly ash Fly ash can improve the resistance of concrete to sulfate attack regardless of the type

of cement used The hydration of Portland cement results in the liberation of calcium

hydroxide (hydrated lime) at about 12 to 20 pounds per bag of cement thus increasing its

permeability In the case of sulfate attack the calcium hydroxide combines with the sulfates

in seawater to produce gypsum Since the newly-produced gypsum occupies a greater

volume than the original calcium hydroxide this results in disruption and disintegration of

the concrete The addition of fly ash is useful in this regard because the silica components of

ash combine with the liberated calcium hydroxide to form stable cementitious compounds

This reduces the amount of calcium hydroxide available for dissolution and thus preserves

the impermeability of the concrete This also means that there is less calcium hydroxide

available for the formation of gypsum and it is this fact that results in the dramatic increase

in sulfate resistance (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash used in large quantities and when stimulated hydraulically by the lime

produced by the hydration of Portland cement acts as an inhibitor of corrosion of steel in

reinforced concrete The extent to which this effect is present in ferrocement is yet to be

determined However an immersion test conducted by the Canadian Bureau of Fisheries

found that a mortar cover of one-sixteenth inch was sufficient to protect the steel from attack

provided that the mortar is of high density and imperviousness (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash in concrete also reduces heat of hydration which is advantageous in some

types of concrete uses such as machinery foundations and other massive structures

(American Concrete Institute 1987)

In the experimental investigation we tested concrete mixes with 40 percent fly ash

replacement by weight This investigation provided an opportunity to compare our results

with previous investigations of Class F fly ash

Class F fly ash has been introduced as a cementitious material in concrete which has

been reported by many investigators Tarun et al (DATE) ndash this reference is not listed at the

end of the chapter studied the incorporation of fly ash Class F and Class C in concrete mixes

for applications in high pavement work The study evaluated mixes with 40 percent Class F

fly ash and 50 percent Class C fly ash Their results for the Class F mixes show that the gain

in compressive strength was greater than the requirement for the mixes without fly ash

Compressive strengths for the mix with 40 percent of Class F fly ash were 2000 psi at 3 days

2500 psi at 7 days 4400 psi at 28 days 5300 psi at 56 days and 5900 psi at 365 days The

freeze and thaw results were 90 percent in excess of durability standards In the rest of the

evaluation results were in excess of or comparable to the concrete without fly ash as a

cementitious material

Langley et al (1992) investigated strength development and temperature rise in large

concrete blocks containing 55 percent low-calcium Class F fly ash A temperature rise in the

hydration of earlier ages in concrete with fly ash was observed One year later the blacks

with the high volume of fly ash exhibited relatively high strength

In another study Langley et al (1989) investigated structural concrete with high

volumes of Class F fly ash The use of 56 percent fly ash in concrete by weight of total

cementitious material resulted in achieving a compressive strength of 3770 psi at 7 days

7121 psi at 14 days and 9137 psi at 28 days Concrete type I was comparable with concrete

type III cement

Tarun and Shiw (DATE) ndash reference not listed investigated characteristics of concrete

by introducing fly ash obtained from various sources The study considered fly ash in the

range of 0 to 100 percent of mass cementitious medium looking at the influence of fly ash on

setting and hardening in concrete The addition of Class C fly ash in concrete was found to

act as a retardant in the setting process The mix with 50 to 60 percent fly ash resulted in the

maximum retardation process

Sivasundaram et al (1990) studied the selection of high-volume fly ash concretes in a

preliminary investigation of Class F fly ash at 58 percent replacement in total cementitious

material They concluded that although high values of fly ash could be used they do not

perform as well as normal concrete mixes It was mentioned that the high dosage of

superplaticizer adds to the materialrsquos workability but that it would likely slow the setting of

certain concrete mixes especially those with high cementitious material content

Ravina et al (1986) investigated ASTM Class F and Class C behavior with 30 and 50

percent fly ash replacement The results showed that the rate of volume of bleeding water

was either higher or the same as in the original mixes without fly ash The setting time was

typically delayed due to the addition of cementitious material such as fly ash Class F fly ash

use resulted in an increase in the rate and the total amount of bleeding However the amount

of setting time an average of two hours was longer with Class C fly ash than with Class F

Carette et al (1993) developed mix proportions for fly ash in concrete using 55 to 60

percent of ASTM Class F fly ash The evaluation of eight different mixes showed good

performance in workability bleeding setting time temperature rise and mechanical

properties

Carette et al (1990) also studied the use of fly ash as a cementitious material with

over 55 percent substituting for cement The investigation looked at the behavior of

mechanical properties of fly ash in cement with a WC of 035 and 030 adding

superplaticizer to get proper workability in the mixes with fly ash in concrete The physical

behavior of the high volume of fly ash was evaluated for particle side distribution non-

evaporable water pore size distribution electron-microscopically observations compressive

strength and modulus of elasticity The WC ratio in a paste of fly ash and cement was found

to correlate with the hydration of cement and the porosity of the paste Fly ash reaction with

CaOH2 between 3 and 7 days begins because of the large volume of fly ash introduced in

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 5: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

65 Conclusion

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The professionals from Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska contributed a

significant amount of time to this research program Our project team would like to thank

the following individuals for their assistance in making this project successful

Concrete Industries

bull Bob Nordquist President

bull Doug Mohrman Sales Manager

bull Mike Mueller Production Superintendent

bull Bill Shottenkirk Pipe Division Foreman

bull Monte Polivika Assistant Foreman

bull Steve Austin Pipe QC

University of Nebraska

bull Jingyi Zhu graduate research assistant

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

11 Problem Statement

Fly ash is a fine residue that results from the combustion of powdered coal in modern

boiler plants Local power utilities in West Virginia and other states produce coal ash from

the burning of sub-bituminous coal which consists of about 80 to 85 percent pulverized (fly)

ash and 15 to 20 percent bottom ash The ash produced is normally stored in bins disposed

of in landfills or hauled away by a contractor

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has developed the ASTM C

618 Standard for use of fly ash in concrete Generally there are two types of fly ash Class F

and Class C Class C fly ash is produced by burning sub-bituminous coal or lignite It has

pozzolanic cementitious properties due to the presence of free lime which makes it

appropriate for use in concrete mixes Do you want to define Class F fly ash

The amount of fly ash produced by local power utilities in West Virginia in 1998 was

quite high of which only a small percent was utilized The significant amount of ash

produced causes environmental concern and financial liability This is due to difficulty in

finding sufficient landfills for the waste and stringent federal mandated standards of ash

disposal It is estimated that handling storage and disposal of coal ash costs about $300 per

ton This means that power utilities have to spend a significant amount of money to dispose

of the waste resulting in increasing electrical rates for the consumers This increase in

expenditure is in addition to two other potentially costly factors the environmental factor and

the landfill shortage factor

12 Objectives

The objectives of this research project are

To analyze the chemical components and to classify the type of fly ash produced by

West Virginia utilities

To provide the appropriate concrete mix that can utilize fly ash efficiently

To give an overview of possible applications in which fly ash could be utilized in

concrete mixes

To provide a cost analysis for replacing concrete with fly ash

In this research reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is the main focus for applying fly ash to

the concrete mix

13 Outline and Scope

131 Literature review

The UNL research team will search the literature to find the latest advancements in

fly ash utilization in concrete applications

132 Chemical composition of fly ash

Three to five fly ash samples carefully chosen to represent the majority of fly ash

produced in West Virginia will be selected by Marshall University These samples will be

chemically tested to determine their composition and their compatibility with the ASTM C

618 Standard

133 Identify concrete applications for fly ash utilization

Based on the information gathered from the literature review (131) and the fly ash

chemical composition (132) UNL and Marshall University will identify three of the most

promising applications where large volumes of fly ash can be used

Among the possible applications are (1) lightweight masonry blocks (2) concrete

pipes (3) concrete overlay for highway bridges (4) pre-cast retaining walls and (5) pre-

stressed concrete ties

Marshall University will provide a preliminary feasibility study to assist UNL in the

selection of the most promising applications

134 Optimization of concrete mixes with fly ash

UNL will make trial mixes using fly ash and test these mixes for the following

properties (1) fresh concrete properties workability segregation bleeding and air

entrainment and (2) hardened concrete properties strength freeze and thaw resistance and

permeability These concrete mixes will be made with fly ash sand and gravel from West

Virginia Marshall University will send the material to UNL

Since fly ash will be used in more than one application it is expected that the

researchers will recommend a mix for each application

135 Feasibility Study

Upon completion of 134 Marshall University and UNL will prepare a feasibility

study on utilizing fly ash in the predetermined applications The study will consider short-

and long-term effects

136 Recommendations for Implementation Plan

UNL and Marshall University will jointly prepare a plan for implementing the

developed mixes This plan should be submitted discussed and finalized with proposed

users of these mixes eg concrete pipe producers the material divisions of highway

agencies such as the West Virginia Department of Transportation and Nebraska Department

of Roads and concrete masonry producers

137 Final Report

A final report of the project including an executive summary and abstract will be

prepared by UNL The final report will cover the following details (1) chemical composition

of fly ash produced in west Virginia (2) possible applications of fly ash utilization (3)

developed mixes and their properties and (4) recommendations for implementation plans

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

21 Introduction

Fossil fuels are used in modern power plants throughout the world to produce

electrical energy The inorganic excess that remains after pulverized coal is burned is known

as Coal Combustion Byproducts (CCBs) CCBs rapidly accumulate and cause enormous

problems with disposal unless a way to utilize these byproducts can be found

The United States produces most of its electrical energy through the burning of fossil

fuels (mainly coal) in modern power plants Ash is a waste product left after the burning of

many combustible substances and fly ash is the accepted term for the finely divided residue

that results from the combustion of ground coal It is easily disseminated by flue gases

unless checked and collected by suitable devices Fly ash particles are primarily composed of

silica and alumina Secondary ingredients are carbon and oxides of iron calcium

magnesium and sulfur Boiler slag and bottom ash are the heavier and coarser CCBs that fall

to the bottom of the boiler

Energy and environmental considerations in the near future point to greater use of

coal As more utilities are forced to shift from gas and oil to coal as a source for fuel the

available quantities of fly ash will increase Fly ash disposal in landfills has been the most

common means of handling ash Fly ash does not pose environmental concerns that would

limit its potential utilization Many uses of fly ash are being investigated by several

organizations to provide more cost-effective ash management

22 Products from Coal Combustion

The following definitions are given to provide a general perspective of the total by-

products resulting from the combustion of coal in power plants

221 Dry Bottom Ash

Dry bottom ash is the residue from coal burned in dry-bottom boilers and is the

product that falls through open gates Generally it is a well-graded aggregate ranging in size

from the US Standard 19-mm to 75-mm (No200) sieve It is characterized as porous and

susceptible to degradation under compaction and loading Although the aggregate may

contain some densely fused particles its specific gravity ranges between 208 and 273 The

major components are silica ferric oxide and alumina The percentage of bottom ash will

depend on the source of the coal burned (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag

Wet bottom slag is produced when the molten residue in a wet-bottom boiler is

discharged into a water-filled hopper It is smaller in maximum size than dry bottom ash and

the particles are glassy and brittle It is uniformly black in color The specific gravity is

usually around 27 but can range from 26 to 385 depending on the iron oxide content The

components are generally the same as those in dry bottom ash but the amount of each

component will vary depending on the source of the coal (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

223 Fly Ash

Class F is defined in ASTM specification C618 as the fly ash normally produced from

burning anthracite or bituminous coal Under current conditions no appreciable amount of

anthracite coals is used for power generation Thus all Class F fly ash now available is

essentially derived from bituminous coal Class F fly ashes are not self-hardening but

generally have pozzolanic properties This means that in the presence of water the fly ash

particles react with calcium hydroxide(lime) to form cementitious products (Sivasundaram et

al 1990) These cementitious products are chemically very similar to those present in

hydrated Portland cement The pozzolanic reactions occur slowly at normal atmospheric

temperatures Most all fly ashes in the United States before about 1975 were of this type

(Ravina and Mehta 1986)

Class C fly ashes normally result from the burning of sub-bituminous coal and lignite

found in the western United States They have pozzolanic properties but may also be self-

hardening That is when mixed with water they harden by hydration much the same way

portland cement hardens (Sivasundaran et al 1990) In most cases this initial hardening

occurs relatively fast These materials are referred to as being cementitious This type of fly

ash has become available in large quantities in the United States only in the last few years as

the western coalfields have been opened (Ravina and Mehta 1986)

2231 Fly Ash Characteristics

Fly ash is an artificial pozzolan produced when pulverized coal is burned in electric

power plants The glassy (amorphous) spherical particles are the active pozzolanic portion of

fly ash Fly ash is 66 to 68 percent glass The American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) has developed the ASTM C618 Standard for use of fly ash in concrete Generally

there are two types of fly ash class F and Class C Class C fly ash is produced by burning

sub-bituminous coal or lignite It has pozzolanic cementitious properties due to the presence

of free-lime which make it appropriate for use in concrete mixes Class F fly ash readily

reacts with lime (produced when Portland cement hydrates) and alkalis to form a

cementitious compound

Fly ash particles carried out of the boiler by the exhaust gases are extremely variable

but have some characteristics of interest Upon discharge from the furnace the ash particles

vary in size from 05 to 100 micron in diameter The particles are spheroidal have a high

mechanical strength and a range of density from about 3 to less than 06 They have a melting

point above 1000 Celsius and low thermal conductivity and are mostly chemically inert Fly

ash is a very small particle and can float in the air due to its size Fly ash has a variety of

colors and pH due to the volume of chemical ingredients It spans a color range from light tan

to gray to black Increased carbon content causes a darker gray-black tone while increased

iron content tends to produce a tan-colored ash The pH of fly ash contacted with water may

vary from 3 to 12 [11]

Table 21 Summary of fly ash characteristics

Description Details

Percent earning from coal ash residue 10-85

Size 05-100 micron

Densities 3 or less

A melting point Above 1000 Celsius

Color Light tan gray black

PH 3 to 12

Fly ash produced at different power plants or at one plant with different coal sources

may have different colors The particle size and shape characteristics of fly ash depend upon

the source and uniformity of the coal the degree of pulverization prior to burning and the

type of collection system used Rapid cooling of the ash from the molten state as it leaves the

flame causes fly ash to be predominantly noncrystalline (glassy) with minor amounts of

crystalline constituents such as mullite quartz magnetite (or ferrel spinel) and hematite

Other constituents which may be present in high-calcium fly ash include periclase

anhydride lime alkali sulfate melilite merwinite nepheline sodalite C3S and C2A

(Carette and Malhotra 1990)

23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete

Fly ash is used in concrete either as an admixture at the concrete mixer or as an

ingredient in blended cement In the latter case the ratio of fly ash to Portland cement

becomes fixed Generally no adjustment in amounts of cementitious material is made when

blended cement is substituted for regular Portland cement Addition of fly ash at the mixer

affords opportunities for adjusting the ratio of fly ash to cement Although fly ash is

sometimes added to improve workability and replaces fine aggregate in the concrete it is

generally a cementitious material added to replace a portion of the Portland cement that

would normally be used Whether added as a portion of the blended cement or at the mixer

the effect of a particular fly ash with the same cement should be essentially the same for the

same ratios and amounts of cementitious materials (American Concrete Institute

___DATE)

24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes

In order to understand how fly ash reacts in a cement mix it is important to

understand the properties of pozzolan A pozzolan is defined by ASTM as a siliceous or

siliceous and aluminous material which in itself possess little or no cementitious value

However in its finely divided form and in the presence of moisture pozzolan will react

chemically with calcium hydroxide (lime) at ordinary temperatures to form compounds

possessing cementitious properties The word pozzolan has come to mean a lime-seeking

cementing agent (University of Nebraska 2002)

The lime that combines with fly ash to produce strong durable cementitious

compounds comes from the hydration of the Portland cement But when Portland cement

combines with water during setting and hardening lime is liberated from some of the

compounds The amount of lime liberated appears to be about 15 to 20 percent of the cement

weight Under unfavorable circumstances a concrete structure may be subject to

disintegration due to the leaching of this lime from the mass One way to overcome this

problem is to mix or grind some pozzolanic material with the cement (fly ash combined with

lime) to form additional insoluble calcium silicates or cementitious compounds (University

of Nebraska 2002)

The physical size and shape of fly ash particles have a profound effect upon the

properties of concrete in the plastic stage Millions of very small glass beads contribute to

increasing plasticity--usually with less mixing water--and improving placing and finishing

For this reason great improvements in pumping qualities of concrete containing fly ash is

clarified (1) This last sentence doesnrsquot make sense but I canrsquot figure out how to fix it

The contribution of fly ash to sulfate resistance of concrete is also a big advantage of

fly ash Fly ash can improve the resistance of concrete to sulfate attack regardless of the type

of cement used The hydration of Portland cement results in the liberation of calcium

hydroxide (hydrated lime) at about 12 to 20 pounds per bag of cement thus increasing its

permeability In the case of sulfate attack the calcium hydroxide combines with the sulfates

in seawater to produce gypsum Since the newly-produced gypsum occupies a greater

volume than the original calcium hydroxide this results in disruption and disintegration of

the concrete The addition of fly ash is useful in this regard because the silica components of

ash combine with the liberated calcium hydroxide to form stable cementitious compounds

This reduces the amount of calcium hydroxide available for dissolution and thus preserves

the impermeability of the concrete This also means that there is less calcium hydroxide

available for the formation of gypsum and it is this fact that results in the dramatic increase

in sulfate resistance (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash used in large quantities and when stimulated hydraulically by the lime

produced by the hydration of Portland cement acts as an inhibitor of corrosion of steel in

reinforced concrete The extent to which this effect is present in ferrocement is yet to be

determined However an immersion test conducted by the Canadian Bureau of Fisheries

found that a mortar cover of one-sixteenth inch was sufficient to protect the steel from attack

provided that the mortar is of high density and imperviousness (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash in concrete also reduces heat of hydration which is advantageous in some

types of concrete uses such as machinery foundations and other massive structures

(American Concrete Institute 1987)

In the experimental investigation we tested concrete mixes with 40 percent fly ash

replacement by weight This investigation provided an opportunity to compare our results

with previous investigations of Class F fly ash

Class F fly ash has been introduced as a cementitious material in concrete which has

been reported by many investigators Tarun et al (DATE) ndash this reference is not listed at the

end of the chapter studied the incorporation of fly ash Class F and Class C in concrete mixes

for applications in high pavement work The study evaluated mixes with 40 percent Class F

fly ash and 50 percent Class C fly ash Their results for the Class F mixes show that the gain

in compressive strength was greater than the requirement for the mixes without fly ash

Compressive strengths for the mix with 40 percent of Class F fly ash were 2000 psi at 3 days

2500 psi at 7 days 4400 psi at 28 days 5300 psi at 56 days and 5900 psi at 365 days The

freeze and thaw results were 90 percent in excess of durability standards In the rest of the

evaluation results were in excess of or comparable to the concrete without fly ash as a

cementitious material

Langley et al (1992) investigated strength development and temperature rise in large

concrete blocks containing 55 percent low-calcium Class F fly ash A temperature rise in the

hydration of earlier ages in concrete with fly ash was observed One year later the blacks

with the high volume of fly ash exhibited relatively high strength

In another study Langley et al (1989) investigated structural concrete with high

volumes of Class F fly ash The use of 56 percent fly ash in concrete by weight of total

cementitious material resulted in achieving a compressive strength of 3770 psi at 7 days

7121 psi at 14 days and 9137 psi at 28 days Concrete type I was comparable with concrete

type III cement

Tarun and Shiw (DATE) ndash reference not listed investigated characteristics of concrete

by introducing fly ash obtained from various sources The study considered fly ash in the

range of 0 to 100 percent of mass cementitious medium looking at the influence of fly ash on

setting and hardening in concrete The addition of Class C fly ash in concrete was found to

act as a retardant in the setting process The mix with 50 to 60 percent fly ash resulted in the

maximum retardation process

Sivasundaram et al (1990) studied the selection of high-volume fly ash concretes in a

preliminary investigation of Class F fly ash at 58 percent replacement in total cementitious

material They concluded that although high values of fly ash could be used they do not

perform as well as normal concrete mixes It was mentioned that the high dosage of

superplaticizer adds to the materialrsquos workability but that it would likely slow the setting of

certain concrete mixes especially those with high cementitious material content

Ravina et al (1986) investigated ASTM Class F and Class C behavior with 30 and 50

percent fly ash replacement The results showed that the rate of volume of bleeding water

was either higher or the same as in the original mixes without fly ash The setting time was

typically delayed due to the addition of cementitious material such as fly ash Class F fly ash

use resulted in an increase in the rate and the total amount of bleeding However the amount

of setting time an average of two hours was longer with Class C fly ash than with Class F

Carette et al (1993) developed mix proportions for fly ash in concrete using 55 to 60

percent of ASTM Class F fly ash The evaluation of eight different mixes showed good

performance in workability bleeding setting time temperature rise and mechanical

properties

Carette et al (1990) also studied the use of fly ash as a cementitious material with

over 55 percent substituting for cement The investigation looked at the behavior of

mechanical properties of fly ash in cement with a WC of 035 and 030 adding

superplaticizer to get proper workability in the mixes with fly ash in concrete The physical

behavior of the high volume of fly ash was evaluated for particle side distribution non-

evaporable water pore size distribution electron-microscopically observations compressive

strength and modulus of elasticity The WC ratio in a paste of fly ash and cement was found

to correlate with the hydration of cement and the porosity of the paste Fly ash reaction with

CaOH2 between 3 and 7 days begins because of the large volume of fly ash introduced in

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 6: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

11 Problem Statement

Fly ash is a fine residue that results from the combustion of powdered coal in modern

boiler plants Local power utilities in West Virginia and other states produce coal ash from

the burning of sub-bituminous coal which consists of about 80 to 85 percent pulverized (fly)

ash and 15 to 20 percent bottom ash The ash produced is normally stored in bins disposed

of in landfills or hauled away by a contractor

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has developed the ASTM C

618 Standard for use of fly ash in concrete Generally there are two types of fly ash Class F

and Class C Class C fly ash is produced by burning sub-bituminous coal or lignite It has

pozzolanic cementitious properties due to the presence of free lime which makes it

appropriate for use in concrete mixes Do you want to define Class F fly ash

The amount of fly ash produced by local power utilities in West Virginia in 1998 was

quite high of which only a small percent was utilized The significant amount of ash

produced causes environmental concern and financial liability This is due to difficulty in

finding sufficient landfills for the waste and stringent federal mandated standards of ash

disposal It is estimated that handling storage and disposal of coal ash costs about $300 per

ton This means that power utilities have to spend a significant amount of money to dispose

of the waste resulting in increasing electrical rates for the consumers This increase in

expenditure is in addition to two other potentially costly factors the environmental factor and

the landfill shortage factor

12 Objectives

The objectives of this research project are

To analyze the chemical components and to classify the type of fly ash produced by

West Virginia utilities

To provide the appropriate concrete mix that can utilize fly ash efficiently

To give an overview of possible applications in which fly ash could be utilized in

concrete mixes

To provide a cost analysis for replacing concrete with fly ash

In this research reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is the main focus for applying fly ash to

the concrete mix

13 Outline and Scope

131 Literature review

The UNL research team will search the literature to find the latest advancements in

fly ash utilization in concrete applications

132 Chemical composition of fly ash

Three to five fly ash samples carefully chosen to represent the majority of fly ash

produced in West Virginia will be selected by Marshall University These samples will be

chemically tested to determine their composition and their compatibility with the ASTM C

618 Standard

133 Identify concrete applications for fly ash utilization

Based on the information gathered from the literature review (131) and the fly ash

chemical composition (132) UNL and Marshall University will identify three of the most

promising applications where large volumes of fly ash can be used

Among the possible applications are (1) lightweight masonry blocks (2) concrete

pipes (3) concrete overlay for highway bridges (4) pre-cast retaining walls and (5) pre-

stressed concrete ties

Marshall University will provide a preliminary feasibility study to assist UNL in the

selection of the most promising applications

134 Optimization of concrete mixes with fly ash

UNL will make trial mixes using fly ash and test these mixes for the following

properties (1) fresh concrete properties workability segregation bleeding and air

entrainment and (2) hardened concrete properties strength freeze and thaw resistance and

permeability These concrete mixes will be made with fly ash sand and gravel from West

Virginia Marshall University will send the material to UNL

Since fly ash will be used in more than one application it is expected that the

researchers will recommend a mix for each application

135 Feasibility Study

Upon completion of 134 Marshall University and UNL will prepare a feasibility

study on utilizing fly ash in the predetermined applications The study will consider short-

and long-term effects

136 Recommendations for Implementation Plan

UNL and Marshall University will jointly prepare a plan for implementing the

developed mixes This plan should be submitted discussed and finalized with proposed

users of these mixes eg concrete pipe producers the material divisions of highway

agencies such as the West Virginia Department of Transportation and Nebraska Department

of Roads and concrete masonry producers

137 Final Report

A final report of the project including an executive summary and abstract will be

prepared by UNL The final report will cover the following details (1) chemical composition

of fly ash produced in west Virginia (2) possible applications of fly ash utilization (3)

developed mixes and their properties and (4) recommendations for implementation plans

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

21 Introduction

Fossil fuels are used in modern power plants throughout the world to produce

electrical energy The inorganic excess that remains after pulverized coal is burned is known

as Coal Combustion Byproducts (CCBs) CCBs rapidly accumulate and cause enormous

problems with disposal unless a way to utilize these byproducts can be found

The United States produces most of its electrical energy through the burning of fossil

fuels (mainly coal) in modern power plants Ash is a waste product left after the burning of

many combustible substances and fly ash is the accepted term for the finely divided residue

that results from the combustion of ground coal It is easily disseminated by flue gases

unless checked and collected by suitable devices Fly ash particles are primarily composed of

silica and alumina Secondary ingredients are carbon and oxides of iron calcium

magnesium and sulfur Boiler slag and bottom ash are the heavier and coarser CCBs that fall

to the bottom of the boiler

Energy and environmental considerations in the near future point to greater use of

coal As more utilities are forced to shift from gas and oil to coal as a source for fuel the

available quantities of fly ash will increase Fly ash disposal in landfills has been the most

common means of handling ash Fly ash does not pose environmental concerns that would

limit its potential utilization Many uses of fly ash are being investigated by several

organizations to provide more cost-effective ash management

22 Products from Coal Combustion

The following definitions are given to provide a general perspective of the total by-

products resulting from the combustion of coal in power plants

221 Dry Bottom Ash

Dry bottom ash is the residue from coal burned in dry-bottom boilers and is the

product that falls through open gates Generally it is a well-graded aggregate ranging in size

from the US Standard 19-mm to 75-mm (No200) sieve It is characterized as porous and

susceptible to degradation under compaction and loading Although the aggregate may

contain some densely fused particles its specific gravity ranges between 208 and 273 The

major components are silica ferric oxide and alumina The percentage of bottom ash will

depend on the source of the coal burned (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag

Wet bottom slag is produced when the molten residue in a wet-bottom boiler is

discharged into a water-filled hopper It is smaller in maximum size than dry bottom ash and

the particles are glassy and brittle It is uniformly black in color The specific gravity is

usually around 27 but can range from 26 to 385 depending on the iron oxide content The

components are generally the same as those in dry bottom ash but the amount of each

component will vary depending on the source of the coal (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

223 Fly Ash

Class F is defined in ASTM specification C618 as the fly ash normally produced from

burning anthracite or bituminous coal Under current conditions no appreciable amount of

anthracite coals is used for power generation Thus all Class F fly ash now available is

essentially derived from bituminous coal Class F fly ashes are not self-hardening but

generally have pozzolanic properties This means that in the presence of water the fly ash

particles react with calcium hydroxide(lime) to form cementitious products (Sivasundaram et

al 1990) These cementitious products are chemically very similar to those present in

hydrated Portland cement The pozzolanic reactions occur slowly at normal atmospheric

temperatures Most all fly ashes in the United States before about 1975 were of this type

(Ravina and Mehta 1986)

Class C fly ashes normally result from the burning of sub-bituminous coal and lignite

found in the western United States They have pozzolanic properties but may also be self-

hardening That is when mixed with water they harden by hydration much the same way

portland cement hardens (Sivasundaran et al 1990) In most cases this initial hardening

occurs relatively fast These materials are referred to as being cementitious This type of fly

ash has become available in large quantities in the United States only in the last few years as

the western coalfields have been opened (Ravina and Mehta 1986)

2231 Fly Ash Characteristics

Fly ash is an artificial pozzolan produced when pulverized coal is burned in electric

power plants The glassy (amorphous) spherical particles are the active pozzolanic portion of

fly ash Fly ash is 66 to 68 percent glass The American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) has developed the ASTM C618 Standard for use of fly ash in concrete Generally

there are two types of fly ash class F and Class C Class C fly ash is produced by burning

sub-bituminous coal or lignite It has pozzolanic cementitious properties due to the presence

of free-lime which make it appropriate for use in concrete mixes Class F fly ash readily

reacts with lime (produced when Portland cement hydrates) and alkalis to form a

cementitious compound

Fly ash particles carried out of the boiler by the exhaust gases are extremely variable

but have some characteristics of interest Upon discharge from the furnace the ash particles

vary in size from 05 to 100 micron in diameter The particles are spheroidal have a high

mechanical strength and a range of density from about 3 to less than 06 They have a melting

point above 1000 Celsius and low thermal conductivity and are mostly chemically inert Fly

ash is a very small particle and can float in the air due to its size Fly ash has a variety of

colors and pH due to the volume of chemical ingredients It spans a color range from light tan

to gray to black Increased carbon content causes a darker gray-black tone while increased

iron content tends to produce a tan-colored ash The pH of fly ash contacted with water may

vary from 3 to 12 [11]

Table 21 Summary of fly ash characteristics

Description Details

Percent earning from coal ash residue 10-85

Size 05-100 micron

Densities 3 or less

A melting point Above 1000 Celsius

Color Light tan gray black

PH 3 to 12

Fly ash produced at different power plants or at one plant with different coal sources

may have different colors The particle size and shape characteristics of fly ash depend upon

the source and uniformity of the coal the degree of pulverization prior to burning and the

type of collection system used Rapid cooling of the ash from the molten state as it leaves the

flame causes fly ash to be predominantly noncrystalline (glassy) with minor amounts of

crystalline constituents such as mullite quartz magnetite (or ferrel spinel) and hematite

Other constituents which may be present in high-calcium fly ash include periclase

anhydride lime alkali sulfate melilite merwinite nepheline sodalite C3S and C2A

(Carette and Malhotra 1990)

23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete

Fly ash is used in concrete either as an admixture at the concrete mixer or as an

ingredient in blended cement In the latter case the ratio of fly ash to Portland cement

becomes fixed Generally no adjustment in amounts of cementitious material is made when

blended cement is substituted for regular Portland cement Addition of fly ash at the mixer

affords opportunities for adjusting the ratio of fly ash to cement Although fly ash is

sometimes added to improve workability and replaces fine aggregate in the concrete it is

generally a cementitious material added to replace a portion of the Portland cement that

would normally be used Whether added as a portion of the blended cement or at the mixer

the effect of a particular fly ash with the same cement should be essentially the same for the

same ratios and amounts of cementitious materials (American Concrete Institute

___DATE)

24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes

In order to understand how fly ash reacts in a cement mix it is important to

understand the properties of pozzolan A pozzolan is defined by ASTM as a siliceous or

siliceous and aluminous material which in itself possess little or no cementitious value

However in its finely divided form and in the presence of moisture pozzolan will react

chemically with calcium hydroxide (lime) at ordinary temperatures to form compounds

possessing cementitious properties The word pozzolan has come to mean a lime-seeking

cementing agent (University of Nebraska 2002)

The lime that combines with fly ash to produce strong durable cementitious

compounds comes from the hydration of the Portland cement But when Portland cement

combines with water during setting and hardening lime is liberated from some of the

compounds The amount of lime liberated appears to be about 15 to 20 percent of the cement

weight Under unfavorable circumstances a concrete structure may be subject to

disintegration due to the leaching of this lime from the mass One way to overcome this

problem is to mix or grind some pozzolanic material with the cement (fly ash combined with

lime) to form additional insoluble calcium silicates or cementitious compounds (University

of Nebraska 2002)

The physical size and shape of fly ash particles have a profound effect upon the

properties of concrete in the plastic stage Millions of very small glass beads contribute to

increasing plasticity--usually with less mixing water--and improving placing and finishing

For this reason great improvements in pumping qualities of concrete containing fly ash is

clarified (1) This last sentence doesnrsquot make sense but I canrsquot figure out how to fix it

The contribution of fly ash to sulfate resistance of concrete is also a big advantage of

fly ash Fly ash can improve the resistance of concrete to sulfate attack regardless of the type

of cement used The hydration of Portland cement results in the liberation of calcium

hydroxide (hydrated lime) at about 12 to 20 pounds per bag of cement thus increasing its

permeability In the case of sulfate attack the calcium hydroxide combines with the sulfates

in seawater to produce gypsum Since the newly-produced gypsum occupies a greater

volume than the original calcium hydroxide this results in disruption and disintegration of

the concrete The addition of fly ash is useful in this regard because the silica components of

ash combine with the liberated calcium hydroxide to form stable cementitious compounds

This reduces the amount of calcium hydroxide available for dissolution and thus preserves

the impermeability of the concrete This also means that there is less calcium hydroxide

available for the formation of gypsum and it is this fact that results in the dramatic increase

in sulfate resistance (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash used in large quantities and when stimulated hydraulically by the lime

produced by the hydration of Portland cement acts as an inhibitor of corrosion of steel in

reinforced concrete The extent to which this effect is present in ferrocement is yet to be

determined However an immersion test conducted by the Canadian Bureau of Fisheries

found that a mortar cover of one-sixteenth inch was sufficient to protect the steel from attack

provided that the mortar is of high density and imperviousness (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash in concrete also reduces heat of hydration which is advantageous in some

types of concrete uses such as machinery foundations and other massive structures

(American Concrete Institute 1987)

In the experimental investigation we tested concrete mixes with 40 percent fly ash

replacement by weight This investigation provided an opportunity to compare our results

with previous investigations of Class F fly ash

Class F fly ash has been introduced as a cementitious material in concrete which has

been reported by many investigators Tarun et al (DATE) ndash this reference is not listed at the

end of the chapter studied the incorporation of fly ash Class F and Class C in concrete mixes

for applications in high pavement work The study evaluated mixes with 40 percent Class F

fly ash and 50 percent Class C fly ash Their results for the Class F mixes show that the gain

in compressive strength was greater than the requirement for the mixes without fly ash

Compressive strengths for the mix with 40 percent of Class F fly ash were 2000 psi at 3 days

2500 psi at 7 days 4400 psi at 28 days 5300 psi at 56 days and 5900 psi at 365 days The

freeze and thaw results were 90 percent in excess of durability standards In the rest of the

evaluation results were in excess of or comparable to the concrete without fly ash as a

cementitious material

Langley et al (1992) investigated strength development and temperature rise in large

concrete blocks containing 55 percent low-calcium Class F fly ash A temperature rise in the

hydration of earlier ages in concrete with fly ash was observed One year later the blacks

with the high volume of fly ash exhibited relatively high strength

In another study Langley et al (1989) investigated structural concrete with high

volumes of Class F fly ash The use of 56 percent fly ash in concrete by weight of total

cementitious material resulted in achieving a compressive strength of 3770 psi at 7 days

7121 psi at 14 days and 9137 psi at 28 days Concrete type I was comparable with concrete

type III cement

Tarun and Shiw (DATE) ndash reference not listed investigated characteristics of concrete

by introducing fly ash obtained from various sources The study considered fly ash in the

range of 0 to 100 percent of mass cementitious medium looking at the influence of fly ash on

setting and hardening in concrete The addition of Class C fly ash in concrete was found to

act as a retardant in the setting process The mix with 50 to 60 percent fly ash resulted in the

maximum retardation process

Sivasundaram et al (1990) studied the selection of high-volume fly ash concretes in a

preliminary investigation of Class F fly ash at 58 percent replacement in total cementitious

material They concluded that although high values of fly ash could be used they do not

perform as well as normal concrete mixes It was mentioned that the high dosage of

superplaticizer adds to the materialrsquos workability but that it would likely slow the setting of

certain concrete mixes especially those with high cementitious material content

Ravina et al (1986) investigated ASTM Class F and Class C behavior with 30 and 50

percent fly ash replacement The results showed that the rate of volume of bleeding water

was either higher or the same as in the original mixes without fly ash The setting time was

typically delayed due to the addition of cementitious material such as fly ash Class F fly ash

use resulted in an increase in the rate and the total amount of bleeding However the amount

of setting time an average of two hours was longer with Class C fly ash than with Class F

Carette et al (1993) developed mix proportions for fly ash in concrete using 55 to 60

percent of ASTM Class F fly ash The evaluation of eight different mixes showed good

performance in workability bleeding setting time temperature rise and mechanical

properties

Carette et al (1990) also studied the use of fly ash as a cementitious material with

over 55 percent substituting for cement The investigation looked at the behavior of

mechanical properties of fly ash in cement with a WC of 035 and 030 adding

superplaticizer to get proper workability in the mixes with fly ash in concrete The physical

behavior of the high volume of fly ash was evaluated for particle side distribution non-

evaporable water pore size distribution electron-microscopically observations compressive

strength and modulus of elasticity The WC ratio in a paste of fly ash and cement was found

to correlate with the hydration of cement and the porosity of the paste Fly ash reaction with

CaOH2 between 3 and 7 days begins because of the large volume of fly ash introduced in

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 7: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

12 Objectives

The objectives of this research project are

To analyze the chemical components and to classify the type of fly ash produced by

West Virginia utilities

To provide the appropriate concrete mix that can utilize fly ash efficiently

To give an overview of possible applications in which fly ash could be utilized in

concrete mixes

To provide a cost analysis for replacing concrete with fly ash

In this research reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is the main focus for applying fly ash to

the concrete mix

13 Outline and Scope

131 Literature review

The UNL research team will search the literature to find the latest advancements in

fly ash utilization in concrete applications

132 Chemical composition of fly ash

Three to five fly ash samples carefully chosen to represent the majority of fly ash

produced in West Virginia will be selected by Marshall University These samples will be

chemically tested to determine their composition and their compatibility with the ASTM C

618 Standard

133 Identify concrete applications for fly ash utilization

Based on the information gathered from the literature review (131) and the fly ash

chemical composition (132) UNL and Marshall University will identify three of the most

promising applications where large volumes of fly ash can be used

Among the possible applications are (1) lightweight masonry blocks (2) concrete

pipes (3) concrete overlay for highway bridges (4) pre-cast retaining walls and (5) pre-

stressed concrete ties

Marshall University will provide a preliminary feasibility study to assist UNL in the

selection of the most promising applications

134 Optimization of concrete mixes with fly ash

UNL will make trial mixes using fly ash and test these mixes for the following

properties (1) fresh concrete properties workability segregation bleeding and air

entrainment and (2) hardened concrete properties strength freeze and thaw resistance and

permeability These concrete mixes will be made with fly ash sand and gravel from West

Virginia Marshall University will send the material to UNL

Since fly ash will be used in more than one application it is expected that the

researchers will recommend a mix for each application

135 Feasibility Study

Upon completion of 134 Marshall University and UNL will prepare a feasibility

study on utilizing fly ash in the predetermined applications The study will consider short-

and long-term effects

136 Recommendations for Implementation Plan

UNL and Marshall University will jointly prepare a plan for implementing the

developed mixes This plan should be submitted discussed and finalized with proposed

users of these mixes eg concrete pipe producers the material divisions of highway

agencies such as the West Virginia Department of Transportation and Nebraska Department

of Roads and concrete masonry producers

137 Final Report

A final report of the project including an executive summary and abstract will be

prepared by UNL The final report will cover the following details (1) chemical composition

of fly ash produced in west Virginia (2) possible applications of fly ash utilization (3)

developed mixes and their properties and (4) recommendations for implementation plans

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

21 Introduction

Fossil fuels are used in modern power plants throughout the world to produce

electrical energy The inorganic excess that remains after pulverized coal is burned is known

as Coal Combustion Byproducts (CCBs) CCBs rapidly accumulate and cause enormous

problems with disposal unless a way to utilize these byproducts can be found

The United States produces most of its electrical energy through the burning of fossil

fuels (mainly coal) in modern power plants Ash is a waste product left after the burning of

many combustible substances and fly ash is the accepted term for the finely divided residue

that results from the combustion of ground coal It is easily disseminated by flue gases

unless checked and collected by suitable devices Fly ash particles are primarily composed of

silica and alumina Secondary ingredients are carbon and oxides of iron calcium

magnesium and sulfur Boiler slag and bottom ash are the heavier and coarser CCBs that fall

to the bottom of the boiler

Energy and environmental considerations in the near future point to greater use of

coal As more utilities are forced to shift from gas and oil to coal as a source for fuel the

available quantities of fly ash will increase Fly ash disposal in landfills has been the most

common means of handling ash Fly ash does not pose environmental concerns that would

limit its potential utilization Many uses of fly ash are being investigated by several

organizations to provide more cost-effective ash management

22 Products from Coal Combustion

The following definitions are given to provide a general perspective of the total by-

products resulting from the combustion of coal in power plants

221 Dry Bottom Ash

Dry bottom ash is the residue from coal burned in dry-bottom boilers and is the

product that falls through open gates Generally it is a well-graded aggregate ranging in size

from the US Standard 19-mm to 75-mm (No200) sieve It is characterized as porous and

susceptible to degradation under compaction and loading Although the aggregate may

contain some densely fused particles its specific gravity ranges between 208 and 273 The

major components are silica ferric oxide and alumina The percentage of bottom ash will

depend on the source of the coal burned (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag

Wet bottom slag is produced when the molten residue in a wet-bottom boiler is

discharged into a water-filled hopper It is smaller in maximum size than dry bottom ash and

the particles are glassy and brittle It is uniformly black in color The specific gravity is

usually around 27 but can range from 26 to 385 depending on the iron oxide content The

components are generally the same as those in dry bottom ash but the amount of each

component will vary depending on the source of the coal (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

223 Fly Ash

Class F is defined in ASTM specification C618 as the fly ash normally produced from

burning anthracite or bituminous coal Under current conditions no appreciable amount of

anthracite coals is used for power generation Thus all Class F fly ash now available is

essentially derived from bituminous coal Class F fly ashes are not self-hardening but

generally have pozzolanic properties This means that in the presence of water the fly ash

particles react with calcium hydroxide(lime) to form cementitious products (Sivasundaram et

al 1990) These cementitious products are chemically very similar to those present in

hydrated Portland cement The pozzolanic reactions occur slowly at normal atmospheric

temperatures Most all fly ashes in the United States before about 1975 were of this type

(Ravina and Mehta 1986)

Class C fly ashes normally result from the burning of sub-bituminous coal and lignite

found in the western United States They have pozzolanic properties but may also be self-

hardening That is when mixed with water they harden by hydration much the same way

portland cement hardens (Sivasundaran et al 1990) In most cases this initial hardening

occurs relatively fast These materials are referred to as being cementitious This type of fly

ash has become available in large quantities in the United States only in the last few years as

the western coalfields have been opened (Ravina and Mehta 1986)

2231 Fly Ash Characteristics

Fly ash is an artificial pozzolan produced when pulverized coal is burned in electric

power plants The glassy (amorphous) spherical particles are the active pozzolanic portion of

fly ash Fly ash is 66 to 68 percent glass The American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) has developed the ASTM C618 Standard for use of fly ash in concrete Generally

there are two types of fly ash class F and Class C Class C fly ash is produced by burning

sub-bituminous coal or lignite It has pozzolanic cementitious properties due to the presence

of free-lime which make it appropriate for use in concrete mixes Class F fly ash readily

reacts with lime (produced when Portland cement hydrates) and alkalis to form a

cementitious compound

Fly ash particles carried out of the boiler by the exhaust gases are extremely variable

but have some characteristics of interest Upon discharge from the furnace the ash particles

vary in size from 05 to 100 micron in diameter The particles are spheroidal have a high

mechanical strength and a range of density from about 3 to less than 06 They have a melting

point above 1000 Celsius and low thermal conductivity and are mostly chemically inert Fly

ash is a very small particle and can float in the air due to its size Fly ash has a variety of

colors and pH due to the volume of chemical ingredients It spans a color range from light tan

to gray to black Increased carbon content causes a darker gray-black tone while increased

iron content tends to produce a tan-colored ash The pH of fly ash contacted with water may

vary from 3 to 12 [11]

Table 21 Summary of fly ash characteristics

Description Details

Percent earning from coal ash residue 10-85

Size 05-100 micron

Densities 3 or less

A melting point Above 1000 Celsius

Color Light tan gray black

PH 3 to 12

Fly ash produced at different power plants or at one plant with different coal sources

may have different colors The particle size and shape characteristics of fly ash depend upon

the source and uniformity of the coal the degree of pulverization prior to burning and the

type of collection system used Rapid cooling of the ash from the molten state as it leaves the

flame causes fly ash to be predominantly noncrystalline (glassy) with minor amounts of

crystalline constituents such as mullite quartz magnetite (or ferrel spinel) and hematite

Other constituents which may be present in high-calcium fly ash include periclase

anhydride lime alkali sulfate melilite merwinite nepheline sodalite C3S and C2A

(Carette and Malhotra 1990)

23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete

Fly ash is used in concrete either as an admixture at the concrete mixer or as an

ingredient in blended cement In the latter case the ratio of fly ash to Portland cement

becomes fixed Generally no adjustment in amounts of cementitious material is made when

blended cement is substituted for regular Portland cement Addition of fly ash at the mixer

affords opportunities for adjusting the ratio of fly ash to cement Although fly ash is

sometimes added to improve workability and replaces fine aggregate in the concrete it is

generally a cementitious material added to replace a portion of the Portland cement that

would normally be used Whether added as a portion of the blended cement or at the mixer

the effect of a particular fly ash with the same cement should be essentially the same for the

same ratios and amounts of cementitious materials (American Concrete Institute

___DATE)

24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes

In order to understand how fly ash reacts in a cement mix it is important to

understand the properties of pozzolan A pozzolan is defined by ASTM as a siliceous or

siliceous and aluminous material which in itself possess little or no cementitious value

However in its finely divided form and in the presence of moisture pozzolan will react

chemically with calcium hydroxide (lime) at ordinary temperatures to form compounds

possessing cementitious properties The word pozzolan has come to mean a lime-seeking

cementing agent (University of Nebraska 2002)

The lime that combines with fly ash to produce strong durable cementitious

compounds comes from the hydration of the Portland cement But when Portland cement

combines with water during setting and hardening lime is liberated from some of the

compounds The amount of lime liberated appears to be about 15 to 20 percent of the cement

weight Under unfavorable circumstances a concrete structure may be subject to

disintegration due to the leaching of this lime from the mass One way to overcome this

problem is to mix or grind some pozzolanic material with the cement (fly ash combined with

lime) to form additional insoluble calcium silicates or cementitious compounds (University

of Nebraska 2002)

The physical size and shape of fly ash particles have a profound effect upon the

properties of concrete in the plastic stage Millions of very small glass beads contribute to

increasing plasticity--usually with less mixing water--and improving placing and finishing

For this reason great improvements in pumping qualities of concrete containing fly ash is

clarified (1) This last sentence doesnrsquot make sense but I canrsquot figure out how to fix it

The contribution of fly ash to sulfate resistance of concrete is also a big advantage of

fly ash Fly ash can improve the resistance of concrete to sulfate attack regardless of the type

of cement used The hydration of Portland cement results in the liberation of calcium

hydroxide (hydrated lime) at about 12 to 20 pounds per bag of cement thus increasing its

permeability In the case of sulfate attack the calcium hydroxide combines with the sulfates

in seawater to produce gypsum Since the newly-produced gypsum occupies a greater

volume than the original calcium hydroxide this results in disruption and disintegration of

the concrete The addition of fly ash is useful in this regard because the silica components of

ash combine with the liberated calcium hydroxide to form stable cementitious compounds

This reduces the amount of calcium hydroxide available for dissolution and thus preserves

the impermeability of the concrete This also means that there is less calcium hydroxide

available for the formation of gypsum and it is this fact that results in the dramatic increase

in sulfate resistance (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash used in large quantities and when stimulated hydraulically by the lime

produced by the hydration of Portland cement acts as an inhibitor of corrosion of steel in

reinforced concrete The extent to which this effect is present in ferrocement is yet to be

determined However an immersion test conducted by the Canadian Bureau of Fisheries

found that a mortar cover of one-sixteenth inch was sufficient to protect the steel from attack

provided that the mortar is of high density and imperviousness (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash in concrete also reduces heat of hydration which is advantageous in some

types of concrete uses such as machinery foundations and other massive structures

(American Concrete Institute 1987)

In the experimental investigation we tested concrete mixes with 40 percent fly ash

replacement by weight This investigation provided an opportunity to compare our results

with previous investigations of Class F fly ash

Class F fly ash has been introduced as a cementitious material in concrete which has

been reported by many investigators Tarun et al (DATE) ndash this reference is not listed at the

end of the chapter studied the incorporation of fly ash Class F and Class C in concrete mixes

for applications in high pavement work The study evaluated mixes with 40 percent Class F

fly ash and 50 percent Class C fly ash Their results for the Class F mixes show that the gain

in compressive strength was greater than the requirement for the mixes without fly ash

Compressive strengths for the mix with 40 percent of Class F fly ash were 2000 psi at 3 days

2500 psi at 7 days 4400 psi at 28 days 5300 psi at 56 days and 5900 psi at 365 days The

freeze and thaw results were 90 percent in excess of durability standards In the rest of the

evaluation results were in excess of or comparable to the concrete without fly ash as a

cementitious material

Langley et al (1992) investigated strength development and temperature rise in large

concrete blocks containing 55 percent low-calcium Class F fly ash A temperature rise in the

hydration of earlier ages in concrete with fly ash was observed One year later the blacks

with the high volume of fly ash exhibited relatively high strength

In another study Langley et al (1989) investigated structural concrete with high

volumes of Class F fly ash The use of 56 percent fly ash in concrete by weight of total

cementitious material resulted in achieving a compressive strength of 3770 psi at 7 days

7121 psi at 14 days and 9137 psi at 28 days Concrete type I was comparable with concrete

type III cement

Tarun and Shiw (DATE) ndash reference not listed investigated characteristics of concrete

by introducing fly ash obtained from various sources The study considered fly ash in the

range of 0 to 100 percent of mass cementitious medium looking at the influence of fly ash on

setting and hardening in concrete The addition of Class C fly ash in concrete was found to

act as a retardant in the setting process The mix with 50 to 60 percent fly ash resulted in the

maximum retardation process

Sivasundaram et al (1990) studied the selection of high-volume fly ash concretes in a

preliminary investigation of Class F fly ash at 58 percent replacement in total cementitious

material They concluded that although high values of fly ash could be used they do not

perform as well as normal concrete mixes It was mentioned that the high dosage of

superplaticizer adds to the materialrsquos workability but that it would likely slow the setting of

certain concrete mixes especially those with high cementitious material content

Ravina et al (1986) investigated ASTM Class F and Class C behavior with 30 and 50

percent fly ash replacement The results showed that the rate of volume of bleeding water

was either higher or the same as in the original mixes without fly ash The setting time was

typically delayed due to the addition of cementitious material such as fly ash Class F fly ash

use resulted in an increase in the rate and the total amount of bleeding However the amount

of setting time an average of two hours was longer with Class C fly ash than with Class F

Carette et al (1993) developed mix proportions for fly ash in concrete using 55 to 60

percent of ASTM Class F fly ash The evaluation of eight different mixes showed good

performance in workability bleeding setting time temperature rise and mechanical

properties

Carette et al (1990) also studied the use of fly ash as a cementitious material with

over 55 percent substituting for cement The investigation looked at the behavior of

mechanical properties of fly ash in cement with a WC of 035 and 030 adding

superplaticizer to get proper workability in the mixes with fly ash in concrete The physical

behavior of the high volume of fly ash was evaluated for particle side distribution non-

evaporable water pore size distribution electron-microscopically observations compressive

strength and modulus of elasticity The WC ratio in a paste of fly ash and cement was found

to correlate with the hydration of cement and the porosity of the paste Fly ash reaction with

CaOH2 between 3 and 7 days begins because of the large volume of fly ash introduced in

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 8: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Among the possible applications are (1) lightweight masonry blocks (2) concrete

pipes (3) concrete overlay for highway bridges (4) pre-cast retaining walls and (5) pre-

stressed concrete ties

Marshall University will provide a preliminary feasibility study to assist UNL in the

selection of the most promising applications

134 Optimization of concrete mixes with fly ash

UNL will make trial mixes using fly ash and test these mixes for the following

properties (1) fresh concrete properties workability segregation bleeding and air

entrainment and (2) hardened concrete properties strength freeze and thaw resistance and

permeability These concrete mixes will be made with fly ash sand and gravel from West

Virginia Marshall University will send the material to UNL

Since fly ash will be used in more than one application it is expected that the

researchers will recommend a mix for each application

135 Feasibility Study

Upon completion of 134 Marshall University and UNL will prepare a feasibility

study on utilizing fly ash in the predetermined applications The study will consider short-

and long-term effects

136 Recommendations for Implementation Plan

UNL and Marshall University will jointly prepare a plan for implementing the

developed mixes This plan should be submitted discussed and finalized with proposed

users of these mixes eg concrete pipe producers the material divisions of highway

agencies such as the West Virginia Department of Transportation and Nebraska Department

of Roads and concrete masonry producers

137 Final Report

A final report of the project including an executive summary and abstract will be

prepared by UNL The final report will cover the following details (1) chemical composition

of fly ash produced in west Virginia (2) possible applications of fly ash utilization (3)

developed mixes and their properties and (4) recommendations for implementation plans

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

21 Introduction

Fossil fuels are used in modern power plants throughout the world to produce

electrical energy The inorganic excess that remains after pulverized coal is burned is known

as Coal Combustion Byproducts (CCBs) CCBs rapidly accumulate and cause enormous

problems with disposal unless a way to utilize these byproducts can be found

The United States produces most of its electrical energy through the burning of fossil

fuels (mainly coal) in modern power plants Ash is a waste product left after the burning of

many combustible substances and fly ash is the accepted term for the finely divided residue

that results from the combustion of ground coal It is easily disseminated by flue gases

unless checked and collected by suitable devices Fly ash particles are primarily composed of

silica and alumina Secondary ingredients are carbon and oxides of iron calcium

magnesium and sulfur Boiler slag and bottom ash are the heavier and coarser CCBs that fall

to the bottom of the boiler

Energy and environmental considerations in the near future point to greater use of

coal As more utilities are forced to shift from gas and oil to coal as a source for fuel the

available quantities of fly ash will increase Fly ash disposal in landfills has been the most

common means of handling ash Fly ash does not pose environmental concerns that would

limit its potential utilization Many uses of fly ash are being investigated by several

organizations to provide more cost-effective ash management

22 Products from Coal Combustion

The following definitions are given to provide a general perspective of the total by-

products resulting from the combustion of coal in power plants

221 Dry Bottom Ash

Dry bottom ash is the residue from coal burned in dry-bottom boilers and is the

product that falls through open gates Generally it is a well-graded aggregate ranging in size

from the US Standard 19-mm to 75-mm (No200) sieve It is characterized as porous and

susceptible to degradation under compaction and loading Although the aggregate may

contain some densely fused particles its specific gravity ranges between 208 and 273 The

major components are silica ferric oxide and alumina The percentage of bottom ash will

depend on the source of the coal burned (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag

Wet bottom slag is produced when the molten residue in a wet-bottom boiler is

discharged into a water-filled hopper It is smaller in maximum size than dry bottom ash and

the particles are glassy and brittle It is uniformly black in color The specific gravity is

usually around 27 but can range from 26 to 385 depending on the iron oxide content The

components are generally the same as those in dry bottom ash but the amount of each

component will vary depending on the source of the coal (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

223 Fly Ash

Class F is defined in ASTM specification C618 as the fly ash normally produced from

burning anthracite or bituminous coal Under current conditions no appreciable amount of

anthracite coals is used for power generation Thus all Class F fly ash now available is

essentially derived from bituminous coal Class F fly ashes are not self-hardening but

generally have pozzolanic properties This means that in the presence of water the fly ash

particles react with calcium hydroxide(lime) to form cementitious products (Sivasundaram et

al 1990) These cementitious products are chemically very similar to those present in

hydrated Portland cement The pozzolanic reactions occur slowly at normal atmospheric

temperatures Most all fly ashes in the United States before about 1975 were of this type

(Ravina and Mehta 1986)

Class C fly ashes normally result from the burning of sub-bituminous coal and lignite

found in the western United States They have pozzolanic properties but may also be self-

hardening That is when mixed with water they harden by hydration much the same way

portland cement hardens (Sivasundaran et al 1990) In most cases this initial hardening

occurs relatively fast These materials are referred to as being cementitious This type of fly

ash has become available in large quantities in the United States only in the last few years as

the western coalfields have been opened (Ravina and Mehta 1986)

2231 Fly Ash Characteristics

Fly ash is an artificial pozzolan produced when pulverized coal is burned in electric

power plants The glassy (amorphous) spherical particles are the active pozzolanic portion of

fly ash Fly ash is 66 to 68 percent glass The American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) has developed the ASTM C618 Standard for use of fly ash in concrete Generally

there are two types of fly ash class F and Class C Class C fly ash is produced by burning

sub-bituminous coal or lignite It has pozzolanic cementitious properties due to the presence

of free-lime which make it appropriate for use in concrete mixes Class F fly ash readily

reacts with lime (produced when Portland cement hydrates) and alkalis to form a

cementitious compound

Fly ash particles carried out of the boiler by the exhaust gases are extremely variable

but have some characteristics of interest Upon discharge from the furnace the ash particles

vary in size from 05 to 100 micron in diameter The particles are spheroidal have a high

mechanical strength and a range of density from about 3 to less than 06 They have a melting

point above 1000 Celsius and low thermal conductivity and are mostly chemically inert Fly

ash is a very small particle and can float in the air due to its size Fly ash has a variety of

colors and pH due to the volume of chemical ingredients It spans a color range from light tan

to gray to black Increased carbon content causes a darker gray-black tone while increased

iron content tends to produce a tan-colored ash The pH of fly ash contacted with water may

vary from 3 to 12 [11]

Table 21 Summary of fly ash characteristics

Description Details

Percent earning from coal ash residue 10-85

Size 05-100 micron

Densities 3 or less

A melting point Above 1000 Celsius

Color Light tan gray black

PH 3 to 12

Fly ash produced at different power plants or at one plant with different coal sources

may have different colors The particle size and shape characteristics of fly ash depend upon

the source and uniformity of the coal the degree of pulverization prior to burning and the

type of collection system used Rapid cooling of the ash from the molten state as it leaves the

flame causes fly ash to be predominantly noncrystalline (glassy) with minor amounts of

crystalline constituents such as mullite quartz magnetite (or ferrel spinel) and hematite

Other constituents which may be present in high-calcium fly ash include periclase

anhydride lime alkali sulfate melilite merwinite nepheline sodalite C3S and C2A

(Carette and Malhotra 1990)

23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete

Fly ash is used in concrete either as an admixture at the concrete mixer or as an

ingredient in blended cement In the latter case the ratio of fly ash to Portland cement

becomes fixed Generally no adjustment in amounts of cementitious material is made when

blended cement is substituted for regular Portland cement Addition of fly ash at the mixer

affords opportunities for adjusting the ratio of fly ash to cement Although fly ash is

sometimes added to improve workability and replaces fine aggregate in the concrete it is

generally a cementitious material added to replace a portion of the Portland cement that

would normally be used Whether added as a portion of the blended cement or at the mixer

the effect of a particular fly ash with the same cement should be essentially the same for the

same ratios and amounts of cementitious materials (American Concrete Institute

___DATE)

24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes

In order to understand how fly ash reacts in a cement mix it is important to

understand the properties of pozzolan A pozzolan is defined by ASTM as a siliceous or

siliceous and aluminous material which in itself possess little or no cementitious value

However in its finely divided form and in the presence of moisture pozzolan will react

chemically with calcium hydroxide (lime) at ordinary temperatures to form compounds

possessing cementitious properties The word pozzolan has come to mean a lime-seeking

cementing agent (University of Nebraska 2002)

The lime that combines with fly ash to produce strong durable cementitious

compounds comes from the hydration of the Portland cement But when Portland cement

combines with water during setting and hardening lime is liberated from some of the

compounds The amount of lime liberated appears to be about 15 to 20 percent of the cement

weight Under unfavorable circumstances a concrete structure may be subject to

disintegration due to the leaching of this lime from the mass One way to overcome this

problem is to mix or grind some pozzolanic material with the cement (fly ash combined with

lime) to form additional insoluble calcium silicates or cementitious compounds (University

of Nebraska 2002)

The physical size and shape of fly ash particles have a profound effect upon the

properties of concrete in the plastic stage Millions of very small glass beads contribute to

increasing plasticity--usually with less mixing water--and improving placing and finishing

For this reason great improvements in pumping qualities of concrete containing fly ash is

clarified (1) This last sentence doesnrsquot make sense but I canrsquot figure out how to fix it

The contribution of fly ash to sulfate resistance of concrete is also a big advantage of

fly ash Fly ash can improve the resistance of concrete to sulfate attack regardless of the type

of cement used The hydration of Portland cement results in the liberation of calcium

hydroxide (hydrated lime) at about 12 to 20 pounds per bag of cement thus increasing its

permeability In the case of sulfate attack the calcium hydroxide combines with the sulfates

in seawater to produce gypsum Since the newly-produced gypsum occupies a greater

volume than the original calcium hydroxide this results in disruption and disintegration of

the concrete The addition of fly ash is useful in this regard because the silica components of

ash combine with the liberated calcium hydroxide to form stable cementitious compounds

This reduces the amount of calcium hydroxide available for dissolution and thus preserves

the impermeability of the concrete This also means that there is less calcium hydroxide

available for the formation of gypsum and it is this fact that results in the dramatic increase

in sulfate resistance (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash used in large quantities and when stimulated hydraulically by the lime

produced by the hydration of Portland cement acts as an inhibitor of corrosion of steel in

reinforced concrete The extent to which this effect is present in ferrocement is yet to be

determined However an immersion test conducted by the Canadian Bureau of Fisheries

found that a mortar cover of one-sixteenth inch was sufficient to protect the steel from attack

provided that the mortar is of high density and imperviousness (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash in concrete also reduces heat of hydration which is advantageous in some

types of concrete uses such as machinery foundations and other massive structures

(American Concrete Institute 1987)

In the experimental investigation we tested concrete mixes with 40 percent fly ash

replacement by weight This investigation provided an opportunity to compare our results

with previous investigations of Class F fly ash

Class F fly ash has been introduced as a cementitious material in concrete which has

been reported by many investigators Tarun et al (DATE) ndash this reference is not listed at the

end of the chapter studied the incorporation of fly ash Class F and Class C in concrete mixes

for applications in high pavement work The study evaluated mixes with 40 percent Class F

fly ash and 50 percent Class C fly ash Their results for the Class F mixes show that the gain

in compressive strength was greater than the requirement for the mixes without fly ash

Compressive strengths for the mix with 40 percent of Class F fly ash were 2000 psi at 3 days

2500 psi at 7 days 4400 psi at 28 days 5300 psi at 56 days and 5900 psi at 365 days The

freeze and thaw results were 90 percent in excess of durability standards In the rest of the

evaluation results were in excess of or comparable to the concrete without fly ash as a

cementitious material

Langley et al (1992) investigated strength development and temperature rise in large

concrete blocks containing 55 percent low-calcium Class F fly ash A temperature rise in the

hydration of earlier ages in concrete with fly ash was observed One year later the blacks

with the high volume of fly ash exhibited relatively high strength

In another study Langley et al (1989) investigated structural concrete with high

volumes of Class F fly ash The use of 56 percent fly ash in concrete by weight of total

cementitious material resulted in achieving a compressive strength of 3770 psi at 7 days

7121 psi at 14 days and 9137 psi at 28 days Concrete type I was comparable with concrete

type III cement

Tarun and Shiw (DATE) ndash reference not listed investigated characteristics of concrete

by introducing fly ash obtained from various sources The study considered fly ash in the

range of 0 to 100 percent of mass cementitious medium looking at the influence of fly ash on

setting and hardening in concrete The addition of Class C fly ash in concrete was found to

act as a retardant in the setting process The mix with 50 to 60 percent fly ash resulted in the

maximum retardation process

Sivasundaram et al (1990) studied the selection of high-volume fly ash concretes in a

preliminary investigation of Class F fly ash at 58 percent replacement in total cementitious

material They concluded that although high values of fly ash could be used they do not

perform as well as normal concrete mixes It was mentioned that the high dosage of

superplaticizer adds to the materialrsquos workability but that it would likely slow the setting of

certain concrete mixes especially those with high cementitious material content

Ravina et al (1986) investigated ASTM Class F and Class C behavior with 30 and 50

percent fly ash replacement The results showed that the rate of volume of bleeding water

was either higher or the same as in the original mixes without fly ash The setting time was

typically delayed due to the addition of cementitious material such as fly ash Class F fly ash

use resulted in an increase in the rate and the total amount of bleeding However the amount

of setting time an average of two hours was longer with Class C fly ash than with Class F

Carette et al (1993) developed mix proportions for fly ash in concrete using 55 to 60

percent of ASTM Class F fly ash The evaluation of eight different mixes showed good

performance in workability bleeding setting time temperature rise and mechanical

properties

Carette et al (1990) also studied the use of fly ash as a cementitious material with

over 55 percent substituting for cement The investigation looked at the behavior of

mechanical properties of fly ash in cement with a WC of 035 and 030 adding

superplaticizer to get proper workability in the mixes with fly ash in concrete The physical

behavior of the high volume of fly ash was evaluated for particle side distribution non-

evaporable water pore size distribution electron-microscopically observations compressive

strength and modulus of elasticity The WC ratio in a paste of fly ash and cement was found

to correlate with the hydration of cement and the porosity of the paste Fly ash reaction with

CaOH2 between 3 and 7 days begins because of the large volume of fly ash introduced in

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 9: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

of Roads and concrete masonry producers

137 Final Report

A final report of the project including an executive summary and abstract will be

prepared by UNL The final report will cover the following details (1) chemical composition

of fly ash produced in west Virginia (2) possible applications of fly ash utilization (3)

developed mixes and their properties and (4) recommendations for implementation plans

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

21 Introduction

Fossil fuels are used in modern power plants throughout the world to produce

electrical energy The inorganic excess that remains after pulverized coal is burned is known

as Coal Combustion Byproducts (CCBs) CCBs rapidly accumulate and cause enormous

problems with disposal unless a way to utilize these byproducts can be found

The United States produces most of its electrical energy through the burning of fossil

fuels (mainly coal) in modern power plants Ash is a waste product left after the burning of

many combustible substances and fly ash is the accepted term for the finely divided residue

that results from the combustion of ground coal It is easily disseminated by flue gases

unless checked and collected by suitable devices Fly ash particles are primarily composed of

silica and alumina Secondary ingredients are carbon and oxides of iron calcium

magnesium and sulfur Boiler slag and bottom ash are the heavier and coarser CCBs that fall

to the bottom of the boiler

Energy and environmental considerations in the near future point to greater use of

coal As more utilities are forced to shift from gas and oil to coal as a source for fuel the

available quantities of fly ash will increase Fly ash disposal in landfills has been the most

common means of handling ash Fly ash does not pose environmental concerns that would

limit its potential utilization Many uses of fly ash are being investigated by several

organizations to provide more cost-effective ash management

22 Products from Coal Combustion

The following definitions are given to provide a general perspective of the total by-

products resulting from the combustion of coal in power plants

221 Dry Bottom Ash

Dry bottom ash is the residue from coal burned in dry-bottom boilers and is the

product that falls through open gates Generally it is a well-graded aggregate ranging in size

from the US Standard 19-mm to 75-mm (No200) sieve It is characterized as porous and

susceptible to degradation under compaction and loading Although the aggregate may

contain some densely fused particles its specific gravity ranges between 208 and 273 The

major components are silica ferric oxide and alumina The percentage of bottom ash will

depend on the source of the coal burned (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag

Wet bottom slag is produced when the molten residue in a wet-bottom boiler is

discharged into a water-filled hopper It is smaller in maximum size than dry bottom ash and

the particles are glassy and brittle It is uniformly black in color The specific gravity is

usually around 27 but can range from 26 to 385 depending on the iron oxide content The

components are generally the same as those in dry bottom ash but the amount of each

component will vary depending on the source of the coal (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

223 Fly Ash

Class F is defined in ASTM specification C618 as the fly ash normally produced from

burning anthracite or bituminous coal Under current conditions no appreciable amount of

anthracite coals is used for power generation Thus all Class F fly ash now available is

essentially derived from bituminous coal Class F fly ashes are not self-hardening but

generally have pozzolanic properties This means that in the presence of water the fly ash

particles react with calcium hydroxide(lime) to form cementitious products (Sivasundaram et

al 1990) These cementitious products are chemically very similar to those present in

hydrated Portland cement The pozzolanic reactions occur slowly at normal atmospheric

temperatures Most all fly ashes in the United States before about 1975 were of this type

(Ravina and Mehta 1986)

Class C fly ashes normally result from the burning of sub-bituminous coal and lignite

found in the western United States They have pozzolanic properties but may also be self-

hardening That is when mixed with water they harden by hydration much the same way

portland cement hardens (Sivasundaran et al 1990) In most cases this initial hardening

occurs relatively fast These materials are referred to as being cementitious This type of fly

ash has become available in large quantities in the United States only in the last few years as

the western coalfields have been opened (Ravina and Mehta 1986)

2231 Fly Ash Characteristics

Fly ash is an artificial pozzolan produced when pulverized coal is burned in electric

power plants The glassy (amorphous) spherical particles are the active pozzolanic portion of

fly ash Fly ash is 66 to 68 percent glass The American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) has developed the ASTM C618 Standard for use of fly ash in concrete Generally

there are two types of fly ash class F and Class C Class C fly ash is produced by burning

sub-bituminous coal or lignite It has pozzolanic cementitious properties due to the presence

of free-lime which make it appropriate for use in concrete mixes Class F fly ash readily

reacts with lime (produced when Portland cement hydrates) and alkalis to form a

cementitious compound

Fly ash particles carried out of the boiler by the exhaust gases are extremely variable

but have some characteristics of interest Upon discharge from the furnace the ash particles

vary in size from 05 to 100 micron in diameter The particles are spheroidal have a high

mechanical strength and a range of density from about 3 to less than 06 They have a melting

point above 1000 Celsius and low thermal conductivity and are mostly chemically inert Fly

ash is a very small particle and can float in the air due to its size Fly ash has a variety of

colors and pH due to the volume of chemical ingredients It spans a color range from light tan

to gray to black Increased carbon content causes a darker gray-black tone while increased

iron content tends to produce a tan-colored ash The pH of fly ash contacted with water may

vary from 3 to 12 [11]

Table 21 Summary of fly ash characteristics

Description Details

Percent earning from coal ash residue 10-85

Size 05-100 micron

Densities 3 or less

A melting point Above 1000 Celsius

Color Light tan gray black

PH 3 to 12

Fly ash produced at different power plants or at one plant with different coal sources

may have different colors The particle size and shape characteristics of fly ash depend upon

the source and uniformity of the coal the degree of pulverization prior to burning and the

type of collection system used Rapid cooling of the ash from the molten state as it leaves the

flame causes fly ash to be predominantly noncrystalline (glassy) with minor amounts of

crystalline constituents such as mullite quartz magnetite (or ferrel spinel) and hematite

Other constituents which may be present in high-calcium fly ash include periclase

anhydride lime alkali sulfate melilite merwinite nepheline sodalite C3S and C2A

(Carette and Malhotra 1990)

23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete

Fly ash is used in concrete either as an admixture at the concrete mixer or as an

ingredient in blended cement In the latter case the ratio of fly ash to Portland cement

becomes fixed Generally no adjustment in amounts of cementitious material is made when

blended cement is substituted for regular Portland cement Addition of fly ash at the mixer

affords opportunities for adjusting the ratio of fly ash to cement Although fly ash is

sometimes added to improve workability and replaces fine aggregate in the concrete it is

generally a cementitious material added to replace a portion of the Portland cement that

would normally be used Whether added as a portion of the blended cement or at the mixer

the effect of a particular fly ash with the same cement should be essentially the same for the

same ratios and amounts of cementitious materials (American Concrete Institute

___DATE)

24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes

In order to understand how fly ash reacts in a cement mix it is important to

understand the properties of pozzolan A pozzolan is defined by ASTM as a siliceous or

siliceous and aluminous material which in itself possess little or no cementitious value

However in its finely divided form and in the presence of moisture pozzolan will react

chemically with calcium hydroxide (lime) at ordinary temperatures to form compounds

possessing cementitious properties The word pozzolan has come to mean a lime-seeking

cementing agent (University of Nebraska 2002)

The lime that combines with fly ash to produce strong durable cementitious

compounds comes from the hydration of the Portland cement But when Portland cement

combines with water during setting and hardening lime is liberated from some of the

compounds The amount of lime liberated appears to be about 15 to 20 percent of the cement

weight Under unfavorable circumstances a concrete structure may be subject to

disintegration due to the leaching of this lime from the mass One way to overcome this

problem is to mix or grind some pozzolanic material with the cement (fly ash combined with

lime) to form additional insoluble calcium silicates or cementitious compounds (University

of Nebraska 2002)

The physical size and shape of fly ash particles have a profound effect upon the

properties of concrete in the plastic stage Millions of very small glass beads contribute to

increasing plasticity--usually with less mixing water--and improving placing and finishing

For this reason great improvements in pumping qualities of concrete containing fly ash is

clarified (1) This last sentence doesnrsquot make sense but I canrsquot figure out how to fix it

The contribution of fly ash to sulfate resistance of concrete is also a big advantage of

fly ash Fly ash can improve the resistance of concrete to sulfate attack regardless of the type

of cement used The hydration of Portland cement results in the liberation of calcium

hydroxide (hydrated lime) at about 12 to 20 pounds per bag of cement thus increasing its

permeability In the case of sulfate attack the calcium hydroxide combines with the sulfates

in seawater to produce gypsum Since the newly-produced gypsum occupies a greater

volume than the original calcium hydroxide this results in disruption and disintegration of

the concrete The addition of fly ash is useful in this regard because the silica components of

ash combine with the liberated calcium hydroxide to form stable cementitious compounds

This reduces the amount of calcium hydroxide available for dissolution and thus preserves

the impermeability of the concrete This also means that there is less calcium hydroxide

available for the formation of gypsum and it is this fact that results in the dramatic increase

in sulfate resistance (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash used in large quantities and when stimulated hydraulically by the lime

produced by the hydration of Portland cement acts as an inhibitor of corrosion of steel in

reinforced concrete The extent to which this effect is present in ferrocement is yet to be

determined However an immersion test conducted by the Canadian Bureau of Fisheries

found that a mortar cover of one-sixteenth inch was sufficient to protect the steel from attack

provided that the mortar is of high density and imperviousness (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash in concrete also reduces heat of hydration which is advantageous in some

types of concrete uses such as machinery foundations and other massive structures

(American Concrete Institute 1987)

In the experimental investigation we tested concrete mixes with 40 percent fly ash

replacement by weight This investigation provided an opportunity to compare our results

with previous investigations of Class F fly ash

Class F fly ash has been introduced as a cementitious material in concrete which has

been reported by many investigators Tarun et al (DATE) ndash this reference is not listed at the

end of the chapter studied the incorporation of fly ash Class F and Class C in concrete mixes

for applications in high pavement work The study evaluated mixes with 40 percent Class F

fly ash and 50 percent Class C fly ash Their results for the Class F mixes show that the gain

in compressive strength was greater than the requirement for the mixes without fly ash

Compressive strengths for the mix with 40 percent of Class F fly ash were 2000 psi at 3 days

2500 psi at 7 days 4400 psi at 28 days 5300 psi at 56 days and 5900 psi at 365 days The

freeze and thaw results were 90 percent in excess of durability standards In the rest of the

evaluation results were in excess of or comparable to the concrete without fly ash as a

cementitious material

Langley et al (1992) investigated strength development and temperature rise in large

concrete blocks containing 55 percent low-calcium Class F fly ash A temperature rise in the

hydration of earlier ages in concrete with fly ash was observed One year later the blacks

with the high volume of fly ash exhibited relatively high strength

In another study Langley et al (1989) investigated structural concrete with high

volumes of Class F fly ash The use of 56 percent fly ash in concrete by weight of total

cementitious material resulted in achieving a compressive strength of 3770 psi at 7 days

7121 psi at 14 days and 9137 psi at 28 days Concrete type I was comparable with concrete

type III cement

Tarun and Shiw (DATE) ndash reference not listed investigated characteristics of concrete

by introducing fly ash obtained from various sources The study considered fly ash in the

range of 0 to 100 percent of mass cementitious medium looking at the influence of fly ash on

setting and hardening in concrete The addition of Class C fly ash in concrete was found to

act as a retardant in the setting process The mix with 50 to 60 percent fly ash resulted in the

maximum retardation process

Sivasundaram et al (1990) studied the selection of high-volume fly ash concretes in a

preliminary investigation of Class F fly ash at 58 percent replacement in total cementitious

material They concluded that although high values of fly ash could be used they do not

perform as well as normal concrete mixes It was mentioned that the high dosage of

superplaticizer adds to the materialrsquos workability but that it would likely slow the setting of

certain concrete mixes especially those with high cementitious material content

Ravina et al (1986) investigated ASTM Class F and Class C behavior with 30 and 50

percent fly ash replacement The results showed that the rate of volume of bleeding water

was either higher or the same as in the original mixes without fly ash The setting time was

typically delayed due to the addition of cementitious material such as fly ash Class F fly ash

use resulted in an increase in the rate and the total amount of bleeding However the amount

of setting time an average of two hours was longer with Class C fly ash than with Class F

Carette et al (1993) developed mix proportions for fly ash in concrete using 55 to 60

percent of ASTM Class F fly ash The evaluation of eight different mixes showed good

performance in workability bleeding setting time temperature rise and mechanical

properties

Carette et al (1990) also studied the use of fly ash as a cementitious material with

over 55 percent substituting for cement The investigation looked at the behavior of

mechanical properties of fly ash in cement with a WC of 035 and 030 adding

superplaticizer to get proper workability in the mixes with fly ash in concrete The physical

behavior of the high volume of fly ash was evaluated for particle side distribution non-

evaporable water pore size distribution electron-microscopically observations compressive

strength and modulus of elasticity The WC ratio in a paste of fly ash and cement was found

to correlate with the hydration of cement and the porosity of the paste Fly ash reaction with

CaOH2 between 3 and 7 days begins because of the large volume of fly ash introduced in

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 10: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

21 Introduction

Fossil fuels are used in modern power plants throughout the world to produce

electrical energy The inorganic excess that remains after pulverized coal is burned is known

as Coal Combustion Byproducts (CCBs) CCBs rapidly accumulate and cause enormous

problems with disposal unless a way to utilize these byproducts can be found

The United States produces most of its electrical energy through the burning of fossil

fuels (mainly coal) in modern power plants Ash is a waste product left after the burning of

many combustible substances and fly ash is the accepted term for the finely divided residue

that results from the combustion of ground coal It is easily disseminated by flue gases

unless checked and collected by suitable devices Fly ash particles are primarily composed of

silica and alumina Secondary ingredients are carbon and oxides of iron calcium

magnesium and sulfur Boiler slag and bottom ash are the heavier and coarser CCBs that fall

to the bottom of the boiler

Energy and environmental considerations in the near future point to greater use of

coal As more utilities are forced to shift from gas and oil to coal as a source for fuel the

available quantities of fly ash will increase Fly ash disposal in landfills has been the most

common means of handling ash Fly ash does not pose environmental concerns that would

limit its potential utilization Many uses of fly ash are being investigated by several

organizations to provide more cost-effective ash management

22 Products from Coal Combustion

The following definitions are given to provide a general perspective of the total by-

products resulting from the combustion of coal in power plants

221 Dry Bottom Ash

Dry bottom ash is the residue from coal burned in dry-bottom boilers and is the

product that falls through open gates Generally it is a well-graded aggregate ranging in size

from the US Standard 19-mm to 75-mm (No200) sieve It is characterized as porous and

susceptible to degradation under compaction and loading Although the aggregate may

contain some densely fused particles its specific gravity ranges between 208 and 273 The

major components are silica ferric oxide and alumina The percentage of bottom ash will

depend on the source of the coal burned (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag

Wet bottom slag is produced when the molten residue in a wet-bottom boiler is

discharged into a water-filled hopper It is smaller in maximum size than dry bottom ash and

the particles are glassy and brittle It is uniformly black in color The specific gravity is

usually around 27 but can range from 26 to 385 depending on the iron oxide content The

components are generally the same as those in dry bottom ash but the amount of each

component will vary depending on the source of the coal (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

223 Fly Ash

Class F is defined in ASTM specification C618 as the fly ash normally produced from

burning anthracite or bituminous coal Under current conditions no appreciable amount of

anthracite coals is used for power generation Thus all Class F fly ash now available is

essentially derived from bituminous coal Class F fly ashes are not self-hardening but

generally have pozzolanic properties This means that in the presence of water the fly ash

particles react with calcium hydroxide(lime) to form cementitious products (Sivasundaram et

al 1990) These cementitious products are chemically very similar to those present in

hydrated Portland cement The pozzolanic reactions occur slowly at normal atmospheric

temperatures Most all fly ashes in the United States before about 1975 were of this type

(Ravina and Mehta 1986)

Class C fly ashes normally result from the burning of sub-bituminous coal and lignite

found in the western United States They have pozzolanic properties but may also be self-

hardening That is when mixed with water they harden by hydration much the same way

portland cement hardens (Sivasundaran et al 1990) In most cases this initial hardening

occurs relatively fast These materials are referred to as being cementitious This type of fly

ash has become available in large quantities in the United States only in the last few years as

the western coalfields have been opened (Ravina and Mehta 1986)

2231 Fly Ash Characteristics

Fly ash is an artificial pozzolan produced when pulverized coal is burned in electric

power plants The glassy (amorphous) spherical particles are the active pozzolanic portion of

fly ash Fly ash is 66 to 68 percent glass The American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) has developed the ASTM C618 Standard for use of fly ash in concrete Generally

there are two types of fly ash class F and Class C Class C fly ash is produced by burning

sub-bituminous coal or lignite It has pozzolanic cementitious properties due to the presence

of free-lime which make it appropriate for use in concrete mixes Class F fly ash readily

reacts with lime (produced when Portland cement hydrates) and alkalis to form a

cementitious compound

Fly ash particles carried out of the boiler by the exhaust gases are extremely variable

but have some characteristics of interest Upon discharge from the furnace the ash particles

vary in size from 05 to 100 micron in diameter The particles are spheroidal have a high

mechanical strength and a range of density from about 3 to less than 06 They have a melting

point above 1000 Celsius and low thermal conductivity and are mostly chemically inert Fly

ash is a very small particle and can float in the air due to its size Fly ash has a variety of

colors and pH due to the volume of chemical ingredients It spans a color range from light tan

to gray to black Increased carbon content causes a darker gray-black tone while increased

iron content tends to produce a tan-colored ash The pH of fly ash contacted with water may

vary from 3 to 12 [11]

Table 21 Summary of fly ash characteristics

Description Details

Percent earning from coal ash residue 10-85

Size 05-100 micron

Densities 3 or less

A melting point Above 1000 Celsius

Color Light tan gray black

PH 3 to 12

Fly ash produced at different power plants or at one plant with different coal sources

may have different colors The particle size and shape characteristics of fly ash depend upon

the source and uniformity of the coal the degree of pulverization prior to burning and the

type of collection system used Rapid cooling of the ash from the molten state as it leaves the

flame causes fly ash to be predominantly noncrystalline (glassy) with minor amounts of

crystalline constituents such as mullite quartz magnetite (or ferrel spinel) and hematite

Other constituents which may be present in high-calcium fly ash include periclase

anhydride lime alkali sulfate melilite merwinite nepheline sodalite C3S and C2A

(Carette and Malhotra 1990)

23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete

Fly ash is used in concrete either as an admixture at the concrete mixer or as an

ingredient in blended cement In the latter case the ratio of fly ash to Portland cement

becomes fixed Generally no adjustment in amounts of cementitious material is made when

blended cement is substituted for regular Portland cement Addition of fly ash at the mixer

affords opportunities for adjusting the ratio of fly ash to cement Although fly ash is

sometimes added to improve workability and replaces fine aggregate in the concrete it is

generally a cementitious material added to replace a portion of the Portland cement that

would normally be used Whether added as a portion of the blended cement or at the mixer

the effect of a particular fly ash with the same cement should be essentially the same for the

same ratios and amounts of cementitious materials (American Concrete Institute

___DATE)

24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes

In order to understand how fly ash reacts in a cement mix it is important to

understand the properties of pozzolan A pozzolan is defined by ASTM as a siliceous or

siliceous and aluminous material which in itself possess little or no cementitious value

However in its finely divided form and in the presence of moisture pozzolan will react

chemically with calcium hydroxide (lime) at ordinary temperatures to form compounds

possessing cementitious properties The word pozzolan has come to mean a lime-seeking

cementing agent (University of Nebraska 2002)

The lime that combines with fly ash to produce strong durable cementitious

compounds comes from the hydration of the Portland cement But when Portland cement

combines with water during setting and hardening lime is liberated from some of the

compounds The amount of lime liberated appears to be about 15 to 20 percent of the cement

weight Under unfavorable circumstances a concrete structure may be subject to

disintegration due to the leaching of this lime from the mass One way to overcome this

problem is to mix or grind some pozzolanic material with the cement (fly ash combined with

lime) to form additional insoluble calcium silicates or cementitious compounds (University

of Nebraska 2002)

The physical size and shape of fly ash particles have a profound effect upon the

properties of concrete in the plastic stage Millions of very small glass beads contribute to

increasing plasticity--usually with less mixing water--and improving placing and finishing

For this reason great improvements in pumping qualities of concrete containing fly ash is

clarified (1) This last sentence doesnrsquot make sense but I canrsquot figure out how to fix it

The contribution of fly ash to sulfate resistance of concrete is also a big advantage of

fly ash Fly ash can improve the resistance of concrete to sulfate attack regardless of the type

of cement used The hydration of Portland cement results in the liberation of calcium

hydroxide (hydrated lime) at about 12 to 20 pounds per bag of cement thus increasing its

permeability In the case of sulfate attack the calcium hydroxide combines with the sulfates

in seawater to produce gypsum Since the newly-produced gypsum occupies a greater

volume than the original calcium hydroxide this results in disruption and disintegration of

the concrete The addition of fly ash is useful in this regard because the silica components of

ash combine with the liberated calcium hydroxide to form stable cementitious compounds

This reduces the amount of calcium hydroxide available for dissolution and thus preserves

the impermeability of the concrete This also means that there is less calcium hydroxide

available for the formation of gypsum and it is this fact that results in the dramatic increase

in sulfate resistance (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash used in large quantities and when stimulated hydraulically by the lime

produced by the hydration of Portland cement acts as an inhibitor of corrosion of steel in

reinforced concrete The extent to which this effect is present in ferrocement is yet to be

determined However an immersion test conducted by the Canadian Bureau of Fisheries

found that a mortar cover of one-sixteenth inch was sufficient to protect the steel from attack

provided that the mortar is of high density and imperviousness (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash in concrete also reduces heat of hydration which is advantageous in some

types of concrete uses such as machinery foundations and other massive structures

(American Concrete Institute 1987)

In the experimental investigation we tested concrete mixes with 40 percent fly ash

replacement by weight This investigation provided an opportunity to compare our results

with previous investigations of Class F fly ash

Class F fly ash has been introduced as a cementitious material in concrete which has

been reported by many investigators Tarun et al (DATE) ndash this reference is not listed at the

end of the chapter studied the incorporation of fly ash Class F and Class C in concrete mixes

for applications in high pavement work The study evaluated mixes with 40 percent Class F

fly ash and 50 percent Class C fly ash Their results for the Class F mixes show that the gain

in compressive strength was greater than the requirement for the mixes without fly ash

Compressive strengths for the mix with 40 percent of Class F fly ash were 2000 psi at 3 days

2500 psi at 7 days 4400 psi at 28 days 5300 psi at 56 days and 5900 psi at 365 days The

freeze and thaw results were 90 percent in excess of durability standards In the rest of the

evaluation results were in excess of or comparable to the concrete without fly ash as a

cementitious material

Langley et al (1992) investigated strength development and temperature rise in large

concrete blocks containing 55 percent low-calcium Class F fly ash A temperature rise in the

hydration of earlier ages in concrete with fly ash was observed One year later the blacks

with the high volume of fly ash exhibited relatively high strength

In another study Langley et al (1989) investigated structural concrete with high

volumes of Class F fly ash The use of 56 percent fly ash in concrete by weight of total

cementitious material resulted in achieving a compressive strength of 3770 psi at 7 days

7121 psi at 14 days and 9137 psi at 28 days Concrete type I was comparable with concrete

type III cement

Tarun and Shiw (DATE) ndash reference not listed investigated characteristics of concrete

by introducing fly ash obtained from various sources The study considered fly ash in the

range of 0 to 100 percent of mass cementitious medium looking at the influence of fly ash on

setting and hardening in concrete The addition of Class C fly ash in concrete was found to

act as a retardant in the setting process The mix with 50 to 60 percent fly ash resulted in the

maximum retardation process

Sivasundaram et al (1990) studied the selection of high-volume fly ash concretes in a

preliminary investigation of Class F fly ash at 58 percent replacement in total cementitious

material They concluded that although high values of fly ash could be used they do not

perform as well as normal concrete mixes It was mentioned that the high dosage of

superplaticizer adds to the materialrsquos workability but that it would likely slow the setting of

certain concrete mixes especially those with high cementitious material content

Ravina et al (1986) investigated ASTM Class F and Class C behavior with 30 and 50

percent fly ash replacement The results showed that the rate of volume of bleeding water

was either higher or the same as in the original mixes without fly ash The setting time was

typically delayed due to the addition of cementitious material such as fly ash Class F fly ash

use resulted in an increase in the rate and the total amount of bleeding However the amount

of setting time an average of two hours was longer with Class C fly ash than with Class F

Carette et al (1993) developed mix proportions for fly ash in concrete using 55 to 60

percent of ASTM Class F fly ash The evaluation of eight different mixes showed good

performance in workability bleeding setting time temperature rise and mechanical

properties

Carette et al (1990) also studied the use of fly ash as a cementitious material with

over 55 percent substituting for cement The investigation looked at the behavior of

mechanical properties of fly ash in cement with a WC of 035 and 030 adding

superplaticizer to get proper workability in the mixes with fly ash in concrete The physical

behavior of the high volume of fly ash was evaluated for particle side distribution non-

evaporable water pore size distribution electron-microscopically observations compressive

strength and modulus of elasticity The WC ratio in a paste of fly ash and cement was found

to correlate with the hydration of cement and the porosity of the paste Fly ash reaction with

CaOH2 between 3 and 7 days begins because of the large volume of fly ash introduced in

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 11: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

22 Products from Coal Combustion

The following definitions are given to provide a general perspective of the total by-

products resulting from the combustion of coal in power plants

221 Dry Bottom Ash

Dry bottom ash is the residue from coal burned in dry-bottom boilers and is the

product that falls through open gates Generally it is a well-graded aggregate ranging in size

from the US Standard 19-mm to 75-mm (No200) sieve It is characterized as porous and

susceptible to degradation under compaction and loading Although the aggregate may

contain some densely fused particles its specific gravity ranges between 208 and 273 The

major components are silica ferric oxide and alumina The percentage of bottom ash will

depend on the source of the coal burned (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag

Wet bottom slag is produced when the molten residue in a wet-bottom boiler is

discharged into a water-filled hopper It is smaller in maximum size than dry bottom ash and

the particles are glassy and brittle It is uniformly black in color The specific gravity is

usually around 27 but can range from 26 to 385 depending on the iron oxide content The

components are generally the same as those in dry bottom ash but the amount of each

component will vary depending on the source of the coal (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

223 Fly Ash

Class F is defined in ASTM specification C618 as the fly ash normally produced from

burning anthracite or bituminous coal Under current conditions no appreciable amount of

anthracite coals is used for power generation Thus all Class F fly ash now available is

essentially derived from bituminous coal Class F fly ashes are not self-hardening but

generally have pozzolanic properties This means that in the presence of water the fly ash

particles react with calcium hydroxide(lime) to form cementitious products (Sivasundaram et

al 1990) These cementitious products are chemically very similar to those present in

hydrated Portland cement The pozzolanic reactions occur slowly at normal atmospheric

temperatures Most all fly ashes in the United States before about 1975 were of this type

(Ravina and Mehta 1986)

Class C fly ashes normally result from the burning of sub-bituminous coal and lignite

found in the western United States They have pozzolanic properties but may also be self-

hardening That is when mixed with water they harden by hydration much the same way

portland cement hardens (Sivasundaran et al 1990) In most cases this initial hardening

occurs relatively fast These materials are referred to as being cementitious This type of fly

ash has become available in large quantities in the United States only in the last few years as

the western coalfields have been opened (Ravina and Mehta 1986)

2231 Fly Ash Characteristics

Fly ash is an artificial pozzolan produced when pulverized coal is burned in electric

power plants The glassy (amorphous) spherical particles are the active pozzolanic portion of

fly ash Fly ash is 66 to 68 percent glass The American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) has developed the ASTM C618 Standard for use of fly ash in concrete Generally

there are two types of fly ash class F and Class C Class C fly ash is produced by burning

sub-bituminous coal or lignite It has pozzolanic cementitious properties due to the presence

of free-lime which make it appropriate for use in concrete mixes Class F fly ash readily

reacts with lime (produced when Portland cement hydrates) and alkalis to form a

cementitious compound

Fly ash particles carried out of the boiler by the exhaust gases are extremely variable

but have some characteristics of interest Upon discharge from the furnace the ash particles

vary in size from 05 to 100 micron in diameter The particles are spheroidal have a high

mechanical strength and a range of density from about 3 to less than 06 They have a melting

point above 1000 Celsius and low thermal conductivity and are mostly chemically inert Fly

ash is a very small particle and can float in the air due to its size Fly ash has a variety of

colors and pH due to the volume of chemical ingredients It spans a color range from light tan

to gray to black Increased carbon content causes a darker gray-black tone while increased

iron content tends to produce a tan-colored ash The pH of fly ash contacted with water may

vary from 3 to 12 [11]

Table 21 Summary of fly ash characteristics

Description Details

Percent earning from coal ash residue 10-85

Size 05-100 micron

Densities 3 or less

A melting point Above 1000 Celsius

Color Light tan gray black

PH 3 to 12

Fly ash produced at different power plants or at one plant with different coal sources

may have different colors The particle size and shape characteristics of fly ash depend upon

the source and uniformity of the coal the degree of pulverization prior to burning and the

type of collection system used Rapid cooling of the ash from the molten state as it leaves the

flame causes fly ash to be predominantly noncrystalline (glassy) with minor amounts of

crystalline constituents such as mullite quartz magnetite (or ferrel spinel) and hematite

Other constituents which may be present in high-calcium fly ash include periclase

anhydride lime alkali sulfate melilite merwinite nepheline sodalite C3S and C2A

(Carette and Malhotra 1990)

23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete

Fly ash is used in concrete either as an admixture at the concrete mixer or as an

ingredient in blended cement In the latter case the ratio of fly ash to Portland cement

becomes fixed Generally no adjustment in amounts of cementitious material is made when

blended cement is substituted for regular Portland cement Addition of fly ash at the mixer

affords opportunities for adjusting the ratio of fly ash to cement Although fly ash is

sometimes added to improve workability and replaces fine aggregate in the concrete it is

generally a cementitious material added to replace a portion of the Portland cement that

would normally be used Whether added as a portion of the blended cement or at the mixer

the effect of a particular fly ash with the same cement should be essentially the same for the

same ratios and amounts of cementitious materials (American Concrete Institute

___DATE)

24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes

In order to understand how fly ash reacts in a cement mix it is important to

understand the properties of pozzolan A pozzolan is defined by ASTM as a siliceous or

siliceous and aluminous material which in itself possess little or no cementitious value

However in its finely divided form and in the presence of moisture pozzolan will react

chemically with calcium hydroxide (lime) at ordinary temperatures to form compounds

possessing cementitious properties The word pozzolan has come to mean a lime-seeking

cementing agent (University of Nebraska 2002)

The lime that combines with fly ash to produce strong durable cementitious

compounds comes from the hydration of the Portland cement But when Portland cement

combines with water during setting and hardening lime is liberated from some of the

compounds The amount of lime liberated appears to be about 15 to 20 percent of the cement

weight Under unfavorable circumstances a concrete structure may be subject to

disintegration due to the leaching of this lime from the mass One way to overcome this

problem is to mix or grind some pozzolanic material with the cement (fly ash combined with

lime) to form additional insoluble calcium silicates or cementitious compounds (University

of Nebraska 2002)

The physical size and shape of fly ash particles have a profound effect upon the

properties of concrete in the plastic stage Millions of very small glass beads contribute to

increasing plasticity--usually with less mixing water--and improving placing and finishing

For this reason great improvements in pumping qualities of concrete containing fly ash is

clarified (1) This last sentence doesnrsquot make sense but I canrsquot figure out how to fix it

The contribution of fly ash to sulfate resistance of concrete is also a big advantage of

fly ash Fly ash can improve the resistance of concrete to sulfate attack regardless of the type

of cement used The hydration of Portland cement results in the liberation of calcium

hydroxide (hydrated lime) at about 12 to 20 pounds per bag of cement thus increasing its

permeability In the case of sulfate attack the calcium hydroxide combines with the sulfates

in seawater to produce gypsum Since the newly-produced gypsum occupies a greater

volume than the original calcium hydroxide this results in disruption and disintegration of

the concrete The addition of fly ash is useful in this regard because the silica components of

ash combine with the liberated calcium hydroxide to form stable cementitious compounds

This reduces the amount of calcium hydroxide available for dissolution and thus preserves

the impermeability of the concrete This also means that there is less calcium hydroxide

available for the formation of gypsum and it is this fact that results in the dramatic increase

in sulfate resistance (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash used in large quantities and when stimulated hydraulically by the lime

produced by the hydration of Portland cement acts as an inhibitor of corrosion of steel in

reinforced concrete The extent to which this effect is present in ferrocement is yet to be

determined However an immersion test conducted by the Canadian Bureau of Fisheries

found that a mortar cover of one-sixteenth inch was sufficient to protect the steel from attack

provided that the mortar is of high density and imperviousness (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash in concrete also reduces heat of hydration which is advantageous in some

types of concrete uses such as machinery foundations and other massive structures

(American Concrete Institute 1987)

In the experimental investigation we tested concrete mixes with 40 percent fly ash

replacement by weight This investigation provided an opportunity to compare our results

with previous investigations of Class F fly ash

Class F fly ash has been introduced as a cementitious material in concrete which has

been reported by many investigators Tarun et al (DATE) ndash this reference is not listed at the

end of the chapter studied the incorporation of fly ash Class F and Class C in concrete mixes

for applications in high pavement work The study evaluated mixes with 40 percent Class F

fly ash and 50 percent Class C fly ash Their results for the Class F mixes show that the gain

in compressive strength was greater than the requirement for the mixes without fly ash

Compressive strengths for the mix with 40 percent of Class F fly ash were 2000 psi at 3 days

2500 psi at 7 days 4400 psi at 28 days 5300 psi at 56 days and 5900 psi at 365 days The

freeze and thaw results were 90 percent in excess of durability standards In the rest of the

evaluation results were in excess of or comparable to the concrete without fly ash as a

cementitious material

Langley et al (1992) investigated strength development and temperature rise in large

concrete blocks containing 55 percent low-calcium Class F fly ash A temperature rise in the

hydration of earlier ages in concrete with fly ash was observed One year later the blacks

with the high volume of fly ash exhibited relatively high strength

In another study Langley et al (1989) investigated structural concrete with high

volumes of Class F fly ash The use of 56 percent fly ash in concrete by weight of total

cementitious material resulted in achieving a compressive strength of 3770 psi at 7 days

7121 psi at 14 days and 9137 psi at 28 days Concrete type I was comparable with concrete

type III cement

Tarun and Shiw (DATE) ndash reference not listed investigated characteristics of concrete

by introducing fly ash obtained from various sources The study considered fly ash in the

range of 0 to 100 percent of mass cementitious medium looking at the influence of fly ash on

setting and hardening in concrete The addition of Class C fly ash in concrete was found to

act as a retardant in the setting process The mix with 50 to 60 percent fly ash resulted in the

maximum retardation process

Sivasundaram et al (1990) studied the selection of high-volume fly ash concretes in a

preliminary investigation of Class F fly ash at 58 percent replacement in total cementitious

material They concluded that although high values of fly ash could be used they do not

perform as well as normal concrete mixes It was mentioned that the high dosage of

superplaticizer adds to the materialrsquos workability but that it would likely slow the setting of

certain concrete mixes especially those with high cementitious material content

Ravina et al (1986) investigated ASTM Class F and Class C behavior with 30 and 50

percent fly ash replacement The results showed that the rate of volume of bleeding water

was either higher or the same as in the original mixes without fly ash The setting time was

typically delayed due to the addition of cementitious material such as fly ash Class F fly ash

use resulted in an increase in the rate and the total amount of bleeding However the amount

of setting time an average of two hours was longer with Class C fly ash than with Class F

Carette et al (1993) developed mix proportions for fly ash in concrete using 55 to 60

percent of ASTM Class F fly ash The evaluation of eight different mixes showed good

performance in workability bleeding setting time temperature rise and mechanical

properties

Carette et al (1990) also studied the use of fly ash as a cementitious material with

over 55 percent substituting for cement The investigation looked at the behavior of

mechanical properties of fly ash in cement with a WC of 035 and 030 adding

superplaticizer to get proper workability in the mixes with fly ash in concrete The physical

behavior of the high volume of fly ash was evaluated for particle side distribution non-

evaporable water pore size distribution electron-microscopically observations compressive

strength and modulus of elasticity The WC ratio in a paste of fly ash and cement was found

to correlate with the hydration of cement and the porosity of the paste Fly ash reaction with

CaOH2 between 3 and 7 days begins because of the large volume of fly ash introduced in

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 12: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

generally have pozzolanic properties This means that in the presence of water the fly ash

particles react with calcium hydroxide(lime) to form cementitious products (Sivasundaram et

al 1990) These cementitious products are chemically very similar to those present in

hydrated Portland cement The pozzolanic reactions occur slowly at normal atmospheric

temperatures Most all fly ashes in the United States before about 1975 were of this type

(Ravina and Mehta 1986)

Class C fly ashes normally result from the burning of sub-bituminous coal and lignite

found in the western United States They have pozzolanic properties but may also be self-

hardening That is when mixed with water they harden by hydration much the same way

portland cement hardens (Sivasundaran et al 1990) In most cases this initial hardening

occurs relatively fast These materials are referred to as being cementitious This type of fly

ash has become available in large quantities in the United States only in the last few years as

the western coalfields have been opened (Ravina and Mehta 1986)

2231 Fly Ash Characteristics

Fly ash is an artificial pozzolan produced when pulverized coal is burned in electric

power plants The glassy (amorphous) spherical particles are the active pozzolanic portion of

fly ash Fly ash is 66 to 68 percent glass The American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) has developed the ASTM C618 Standard for use of fly ash in concrete Generally

there are two types of fly ash class F and Class C Class C fly ash is produced by burning

sub-bituminous coal or lignite It has pozzolanic cementitious properties due to the presence

of free-lime which make it appropriate for use in concrete mixes Class F fly ash readily

reacts with lime (produced when Portland cement hydrates) and alkalis to form a

cementitious compound

Fly ash particles carried out of the boiler by the exhaust gases are extremely variable

but have some characteristics of interest Upon discharge from the furnace the ash particles

vary in size from 05 to 100 micron in diameter The particles are spheroidal have a high

mechanical strength and a range of density from about 3 to less than 06 They have a melting

point above 1000 Celsius and low thermal conductivity and are mostly chemically inert Fly

ash is a very small particle and can float in the air due to its size Fly ash has a variety of

colors and pH due to the volume of chemical ingredients It spans a color range from light tan

to gray to black Increased carbon content causes a darker gray-black tone while increased

iron content tends to produce a tan-colored ash The pH of fly ash contacted with water may

vary from 3 to 12 [11]

Table 21 Summary of fly ash characteristics

Description Details

Percent earning from coal ash residue 10-85

Size 05-100 micron

Densities 3 or less

A melting point Above 1000 Celsius

Color Light tan gray black

PH 3 to 12

Fly ash produced at different power plants or at one plant with different coal sources

may have different colors The particle size and shape characteristics of fly ash depend upon

the source and uniformity of the coal the degree of pulverization prior to burning and the

type of collection system used Rapid cooling of the ash from the molten state as it leaves the

flame causes fly ash to be predominantly noncrystalline (glassy) with minor amounts of

crystalline constituents such as mullite quartz magnetite (or ferrel spinel) and hematite

Other constituents which may be present in high-calcium fly ash include periclase

anhydride lime alkali sulfate melilite merwinite nepheline sodalite C3S and C2A

(Carette and Malhotra 1990)

23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete

Fly ash is used in concrete either as an admixture at the concrete mixer or as an

ingredient in blended cement In the latter case the ratio of fly ash to Portland cement

becomes fixed Generally no adjustment in amounts of cementitious material is made when

blended cement is substituted for regular Portland cement Addition of fly ash at the mixer

affords opportunities for adjusting the ratio of fly ash to cement Although fly ash is

sometimes added to improve workability and replaces fine aggregate in the concrete it is

generally a cementitious material added to replace a portion of the Portland cement that

would normally be used Whether added as a portion of the blended cement or at the mixer

the effect of a particular fly ash with the same cement should be essentially the same for the

same ratios and amounts of cementitious materials (American Concrete Institute

___DATE)

24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes

In order to understand how fly ash reacts in a cement mix it is important to

understand the properties of pozzolan A pozzolan is defined by ASTM as a siliceous or

siliceous and aluminous material which in itself possess little or no cementitious value

However in its finely divided form and in the presence of moisture pozzolan will react

chemically with calcium hydroxide (lime) at ordinary temperatures to form compounds

possessing cementitious properties The word pozzolan has come to mean a lime-seeking

cementing agent (University of Nebraska 2002)

The lime that combines with fly ash to produce strong durable cementitious

compounds comes from the hydration of the Portland cement But when Portland cement

combines with water during setting and hardening lime is liberated from some of the

compounds The amount of lime liberated appears to be about 15 to 20 percent of the cement

weight Under unfavorable circumstances a concrete structure may be subject to

disintegration due to the leaching of this lime from the mass One way to overcome this

problem is to mix or grind some pozzolanic material with the cement (fly ash combined with

lime) to form additional insoluble calcium silicates or cementitious compounds (University

of Nebraska 2002)

The physical size and shape of fly ash particles have a profound effect upon the

properties of concrete in the plastic stage Millions of very small glass beads contribute to

increasing plasticity--usually with less mixing water--and improving placing and finishing

For this reason great improvements in pumping qualities of concrete containing fly ash is

clarified (1) This last sentence doesnrsquot make sense but I canrsquot figure out how to fix it

The contribution of fly ash to sulfate resistance of concrete is also a big advantage of

fly ash Fly ash can improve the resistance of concrete to sulfate attack regardless of the type

of cement used The hydration of Portland cement results in the liberation of calcium

hydroxide (hydrated lime) at about 12 to 20 pounds per bag of cement thus increasing its

permeability In the case of sulfate attack the calcium hydroxide combines with the sulfates

in seawater to produce gypsum Since the newly-produced gypsum occupies a greater

volume than the original calcium hydroxide this results in disruption and disintegration of

the concrete The addition of fly ash is useful in this regard because the silica components of

ash combine with the liberated calcium hydroxide to form stable cementitious compounds

This reduces the amount of calcium hydroxide available for dissolution and thus preserves

the impermeability of the concrete This also means that there is less calcium hydroxide

available for the formation of gypsum and it is this fact that results in the dramatic increase

in sulfate resistance (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash used in large quantities and when stimulated hydraulically by the lime

produced by the hydration of Portland cement acts as an inhibitor of corrosion of steel in

reinforced concrete The extent to which this effect is present in ferrocement is yet to be

determined However an immersion test conducted by the Canadian Bureau of Fisheries

found that a mortar cover of one-sixteenth inch was sufficient to protect the steel from attack

provided that the mortar is of high density and imperviousness (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash in concrete also reduces heat of hydration which is advantageous in some

types of concrete uses such as machinery foundations and other massive structures

(American Concrete Institute 1987)

In the experimental investigation we tested concrete mixes with 40 percent fly ash

replacement by weight This investigation provided an opportunity to compare our results

with previous investigations of Class F fly ash

Class F fly ash has been introduced as a cementitious material in concrete which has

been reported by many investigators Tarun et al (DATE) ndash this reference is not listed at the

end of the chapter studied the incorporation of fly ash Class F and Class C in concrete mixes

for applications in high pavement work The study evaluated mixes with 40 percent Class F

fly ash and 50 percent Class C fly ash Their results for the Class F mixes show that the gain

in compressive strength was greater than the requirement for the mixes without fly ash

Compressive strengths for the mix with 40 percent of Class F fly ash were 2000 psi at 3 days

2500 psi at 7 days 4400 psi at 28 days 5300 psi at 56 days and 5900 psi at 365 days The

freeze and thaw results were 90 percent in excess of durability standards In the rest of the

evaluation results were in excess of or comparable to the concrete without fly ash as a

cementitious material

Langley et al (1992) investigated strength development and temperature rise in large

concrete blocks containing 55 percent low-calcium Class F fly ash A temperature rise in the

hydration of earlier ages in concrete with fly ash was observed One year later the blacks

with the high volume of fly ash exhibited relatively high strength

In another study Langley et al (1989) investigated structural concrete with high

volumes of Class F fly ash The use of 56 percent fly ash in concrete by weight of total

cementitious material resulted in achieving a compressive strength of 3770 psi at 7 days

7121 psi at 14 days and 9137 psi at 28 days Concrete type I was comparable with concrete

type III cement

Tarun and Shiw (DATE) ndash reference not listed investigated characteristics of concrete

by introducing fly ash obtained from various sources The study considered fly ash in the

range of 0 to 100 percent of mass cementitious medium looking at the influence of fly ash on

setting and hardening in concrete The addition of Class C fly ash in concrete was found to

act as a retardant in the setting process The mix with 50 to 60 percent fly ash resulted in the

maximum retardation process

Sivasundaram et al (1990) studied the selection of high-volume fly ash concretes in a

preliminary investigation of Class F fly ash at 58 percent replacement in total cementitious

material They concluded that although high values of fly ash could be used they do not

perform as well as normal concrete mixes It was mentioned that the high dosage of

superplaticizer adds to the materialrsquos workability but that it would likely slow the setting of

certain concrete mixes especially those with high cementitious material content

Ravina et al (1986) investigated ASTM Class F and Class C behavior with 30 and 50

percent fly ash replacement The results showed that the rate of volume of bleeding water

was either higher or the same as in the original mixes without fly ash The setting time was

typically delayed due to the addition of cementitious material such as fly ash Class F fly ash

use resulted in an increase in the rate and the total amount of bleeding However the amount

of setting time an average of two hours was longer with Class C fly ash than with Class F

Carette et al (1993) developed mix proportions for fly ash in concrete using 55 to 60

percent of ASTM Class F fly ash The evaluation of eight different mixes showed good

performance in workability bleeding setting time temperature rise and mechanical

properties

Carette et al (1990) also studied the use of fly ash as a cementitious material with

over 55 percent substituting for cement The investigation looked at the behavior of

mechanical properties of fly ash in cement with a WC of 035 and 030 adding

superplaticizer to get proper workability in the mixes with fly ash in concrete The physical

behavior of the high volume of fly ash was evaluated for particle side distribution non-

evaporable water pore size distribution electron-microscopically observations compressive

strength and modulus of elasticity The WC ratio in a paste of fly ash and cement was found

to correlate with the hydration of cement and the porosity of the paste Fly ash reaction with

CaOH2 between 3 and 7 days begins because of the large volume of fly ash introduced in

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 13: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Fly ash particles carried out of the boiler by the exhaust gases are extremely variable

but have some characteristics of interest Upon discharge from the furnace the ash particles

vary in size from 05 to 100 micron in diameter The particles are spheroidal have a high

mechanical strength and a range of density from about 3 to less than 06 They have a melting

point above 1000 Celsius and low thermal conductivity and are mostly chemically inert Fly

ash is a very small particle and can float in the air due to its size Fly ash has a variety of

colors and pH due to the volume of chemical ingredients It spans a color range from light tan

to gray to black Increased carbon content causes a darker gray-black tone while increased

iron content tends to produce a tan-colored ash The pH of fly ash contacted with water may

vary from 3 to 12 [11]

Table 21 Summary of fly ash characteristics

Description Details

Percent earning from coal ash residue 10-85

Size 05-100 micron

Densities 3 or less

A melting point Above 1000 Celsius

Color Light tan gray black

PH 3 to 12

Fly ash produced at different power plants or at one plant with different coal sources

may have different colors The particle size and shape characteristics of fly ash depend upon

the source and uniformity of the coal the degree of pulverization prior to burning and the

type of collection system used Rapid cooling of the ash from the molten state as it leaves the

flame causes fly ash to be predominantly noncrystalline (glassy) with minor amounts of

crystalline constituents such as mullite quartz magnetite (or ferrel spinel) and hematite

Other constituents which may be present in high-calcium fly ash include periclase

anhydride lime alkali sulfate melilite merwinite nepheline sodalite C3S and C2A

(Carette and Malhotra 1990)

23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete

Fly ash is used in concrete either as an admixture at the concrete mixer or as an

ingredient in blended cement In the latter case the ratio of fly ash to Portland cement

becomes fixed Generally no adjustment in amounts of cementitious material is made when

blended cement is substituted for regular Portland cement Addition of fly ash at the mixer

affords opportunities for adjusting the ratio of fly ash to cement Although fly ash is

sometimes added to improve workability and replaces fine aggregate in the concrete it is

generally a cementitious material added to replace a portion of the Portland cement that

would normally be used Whether added as a portion of the blended cement or at the mixer

the effect of a particular fly ash with the same cement should be essentially the same for the

same ratios and amounts of cementitious materials (American Concrete Institute

___DATE)

24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes

In order to understand how fly ash reacts in a cement mix it is important to

understand the properties of pozzolan A pozzolan is defined by ASTM as a siliceous or

siliceous and aluminous material which in itself possess little or no cementitious value

However in its finely divided form and in the presence of moisture pozzolan will react

chemically with calcium hydroxide (lime) at ordinary temperatures to form compounds

possessing cementitious properties The word pozzolan has come to mean a lime-seeking

cementing agent (University of Nebraska 2002)

The lime that combines with fly ash to produce strong durable cementitious

compounds comes from the hydration of the Portland cement But when Portland cement

combines with water during setting and hardening lime is liberated from some of the

compounds The amount of lime liberated appears to be about 15 to 20 percent of the cement

weight Under unfavorable circumstances a concrete structure may be subject to

disintegration due to the leaching of this lime from the mass One way to overcome this

problem is to mix or grind some pozzolanic material with the cement (fly ash combined with

lime) to form additional insoluble calcium silicates or cementitious compounds (University

of Nebraska 2002)

The physical size and shape of fly ash particles have a profound effect upon the

properties of concrete in the plastic stage Millions of very small glass beads contribute to

increasing plasticity--usually with less mixing water--and improving placing and finishing

For this reason great improvements in pumping qualities of concrete containing fly ash is

clarified (1) This last sentence doesnrsquot make sense but I canrsquot figure out how to fix it

The contribution of fly ash to sulfate resistance of concrete is also a big advantage of

fly ash Fly ash can improve the resistance of concrete to sulfate attack regardless of the type

of cement used The hydration of Portland cement results in the liberation of calcium

hydroxide (hydrated lime) at about 12 to 20 pounds per bag of cement thus increasing its

permeability In the case of sulfate attack the calcium hydroxide combines with the sulfates

in seawater to produce gypsum Since the newly-produced gypsum occupies a greater

volume than the original calcium hydroxide this results in disruption and disintegration of

the concrete The addition of fly ash is useful in this regard because the silica components of

ash combine with the liberated calcium hydroxide to form stable cementitious compounds

This reduces the amount of calcium hydroxide available for dissolution and thus preserves

the impermeability of the concrete This also means that there is less calcium hydroxide

available for the formation of gypsum and it is this fact that results in the dramatic increase

in sulfate resistance (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash used in large quantities and when stimulated hydraulically by the lime

produced by the hydration of Portland cement acts as an inhibitor of corrosion of steel in

reinforced concrete The extent to which this effect is present in ferrocement is yet to be

determined However an immersion test conducted by the Canadian Bureau of Fisheries

found that a mortar cover of one-sixteenth inch was sufficient to protect the steel from attack

provided that the mortar is of high density and imperviousness (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash in concrete also reduces heat of hydration which is advantageous in some

types of concrete uses such as machinery foundations and other massive structures

(American Concrete Institute 1987)

In the experimental investigation we tested concrete mixes with 40 percent fly ash

replacement by weight This investigation provided an opportunity to compare our results

with previous investigations of Class F fly ash

Class F fly ash has been introduced as a cementitious material in concrete which has

been reported by many investigators Tarun et al (DATE) ndash this reference is not listed at the

end of the chapter studied the incorporation of fly ash Class F and Class C in concrete mixes

for applications in high pavement work The study evaluated mixes with 40 percent Class F

fly ash and 50 percent Class C fly ash Their results for the Class F mixes show that the gain

in compressive strength was greater than the requirement for the mixes without fly ash

Compressive strengths for the mix with 40 percent of Class F fly ash were 2000 psi at 3 days

2500 psi at 7 days 4400 psi at 28 days 5300 psi at 56 days and 5900 psi at 365 days The

freeze and thaw results were 90 percent in excess of durability standards In the rest of the

evaluation results were in excess of or comparable to the concrete without fly ash as a

cementitious material

Langley et al (1992) investigated strength development and temperature rise in large

concrete blocks containing 55 percent low-calcium Class F fly ash A temperature rise in the

hydration of earlier ages in concrete with fly ash was observed One year later the blacks

with the high volume of fly ash exhibited relatively high strength

In another study Langley et al (1989) investigated structural concrete with high

volumes of Class F fly ash The use of 56 percent fly ash in concrete by weight of total

cementitious material resulted in achieving a compressive strength of 3770 psi at 7 days

7121 psi at 14 days and 9137 psi at 28 days Concrete type I was comparable with concrete

type III cement

Tarun and Shiw (DATE) ndash reference not listed investigated characteristics of concrete

by introducing fly ash obtained from various sources The study considered fly ash in the

range of 0 to 100 percent of mass cementitious medium looking at the influence of fly ash on

setting and hardening in concrete The addition of Class C fly ash in concrete was found to

act as a retardant in the setting process The mix with 50 to 60 percent fly ash resulted in the

maximum retardation process

Sivasundaram et al (1990) studied the selection of high-volume fly ash concretes in a

preliminary investigation of Class F fly ash at 58 percent replacement in total cementitious

material They concluded that although high values of fly ash could be used they do not

perform as well as normal concrete mixes It was mentioned that the high dosage of

superplaticizer adds to the materialrsquos workability but that it would likely slow the setting of

certain concrete mixes especially those with high cementitious material content

Ravina et al (1986) investigated ASTM Class F and Class C behavior with 30 and 50

percent fly ash replacement The results showed that the rate of volume of bleeding water

was either higher or the same as in the original mixes without fly ash The setting time was

typically delayed due to the addition of cementitious material such as fly ash Class F fly ash

use resulted in an increase in the rate and the total amount of bleeding However the amount

of setting time an average of two hours was longer with Class C fly ash than with Class F

Carette et al (1993) developed mix proportions for fly ash in concrete using 55 to 60

percent of ASTM Class F fly ash The evaluation of eight different mixes showed good

performance in workability bleeding setting time temperature rise and mechanical

properties

Carette et al (1990) also studied the use of fly ash as a cementitious material with

over 55 percent substituting for cement The investigation looked at the behavior of

mechanical properties of fly ash in cement with a WC of 035 and 030 adding

superplaticizer to get proper workability in the mixes with fly ash in concrete The physical

behavior of the high volume of fly ash was evaluated for particle side distribution non-

evaporable water pore size distribution electron-microscopically observations compressive

strength and modulus of elasticity The WC ratio in a paste of fly ash and cement was found

to correlate with the hydration of cement and the porosity of the paste Fly ash reaction with

CaOH2 between 3 and 7 days begins because of the large volume of fly ash introduced in

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 14: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

flame causes fly ash to be predominantly noncrystalline (glassy) with minor amounts of

crystalline constituents such as mullite quartz magnetite (or ferrel spinel) and hematite

Other constituents which may be present in high-calcium fly ash include periclase

anhydride lime alkali sulfate melilite merwinite nepheline sodalite C3S and C2A

(Carette and Malhotra 1990)

23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete

Fly ash is used in concrete either as an admixture at the concrete mixer or as an

ingredient in blended cement In the latter case the ratio of fly ash to Portland cement

becomes fixed Generally no adjustment in amounts of cementitious material is made when

blended cement is substituted for regular Portland cement Addition of fly ash at the mixer

affords opportunities for adjusting the ratio of fly ash to cement Although fly ash is

sometimes added to improve workability and replaces fine aggregate in the concrete it is

generally a cementitious material added to replace a portion of the Portland cement that

would normally be used Whether added as a portion of the blended cement or at the mixer

the effect of a particular fly ash with the same cement should be essentially the same for the

same ratios and amounts of cementitious materials (American Concrete Institute

___DATE)

24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes

In order to understand how fly ash reacts in a cement mix it is important to

understand the properties of pozzolan A pozzolan is defined by ASTM as a siliceous or

siliceous and aluminous material which in itself possess little or no cementitious value

However in its finely divided form and in the presence of moisture pozzolan will react

chemically with calcium hydroxide (lime) at ordinary temperatures to form compounds

possessing cementitious properties The word pozzolan has come to mean a lime-seeking

cementing agent (University of Nebraska 2002)

The lime that combines with fly ash to produce strong durable cementitious

compounds comes from the hydration of the Portland cement But when Portland cement

combines with water during setting and hardening lime is liberated from some of the

compounds The amount of lime liberated appears to be about 15 to 20 percent of the cement

weight Under unfavorable circumstances a concrete structure may be subject to

disintegration due to the leaching of this lime from the mass One way to overcome this

problem is to mix or grind some pozzolanic material with the cement (fly ash combined with

lime) to form additional insoluble calcium silicates or cementitious compounds (University

of Nebraska 2002)

The physical size and shape of fly ash particles have a profound effect upon the

properties of concrete in the plastic stage Millions of very small glass beads contribute to

increasing plasticity--usually with less mixing water--and improving placing and finishing

For this reason great improvements in pumping qualities of concrete containing fly ash is

clarified (1) This last sentence doesnrsquot make sense but I canrsquot figure out how to fix it

The contribution of fly ash to sulfate resistance of concrete is also a big advantage of

fly ash Fly ash can improve the resistance of concrete to sulfate attack regardless of the type

of cement used The hydration of Portland cement results in the liberation of calcium

hydroxide (hydrated lime) at about 12 to 20 pounds per bag of cement thus increasing its

permeability In the case of sulfate attack the calcium hydroxide combines with the sulfates

in seawater to produce gypsum Since the newly-produced gypsum occupies a greater

volume than the original calcium hydroxide this results in disruption and disintegration of

the concrete The addition of fly ash is useful in this regard because the silica components of

ash combine with the liberated calcium hydroxide to form stable cementitious compounds

This reduces the amount of calcium hydroxide available for dissolution and thus preserves

the impermeability of the concrete This also means that there is less calcium hydroxide

available for the formation of gypsum and it is this fact that results in the dramatic increase

in sulfate resistance (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash used in large quantities and when stimulated hydraulically by the lime

produced by the hydration of Portland cement acts as an inhibitor of corrosion of steel in

reinforced concrete The extent to which this effect is present in ferrocement is yet to be

determined However an immersion test conducted by the Canadian Bureau of Fisheries

found that a mortar cover of one-sixteenth inch was sufficient to protect the steel from attack

provided that the mortar is of high density and imperviousness (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash in concrete also reduces heat of hydration which is advantageous in some

types of concrete uses such as machinery foundations and other massive structures

(American Concrete Institute 1987)

In the experimental investigation we tested concrete mixes with 40 percent fly ash

replacement by weight This investigation provided an opportunity to compare our results

with previous investigations of Class F fly ash

Class F fly ash has been introduced as a cementitious material in concrete which has

been reported by many investigators Tarun et al (DATE) ndash this reference is not listed at the

end of the chapter studied the incorporation of fly ash Class F and Class C in concrete mixes

for applications in high pavement work The study evaluated mixes with 40 percent Class F

fly ash and 50 percent Class C fly ash Their results for the Class F mixes show that the gain

in compressive strength was greater than the requirement for the mixes without fly ash

Compressive strengths for the mix with 40 percent of Class F fly ash were 2000 psi at 3 days

2500 psi at 7 days 4400 psi at 28 days 5300 psi at 56 days and 5900 psi at 365 days The

freeze and thaw results were 90 percent in excess of durability standards In the rest of the

evaluation results were in excess of or comparable to the concrete without fly ash as a

cementitious material

Langley et al (1992) investigated strength development and temperature rise in large

concrete blocks containing 55 percent low-calcium Class F fly ash A temperature rise in the

hydration of earlier ages in concrete with fly ash was observed One year later the blacks

with the high volume of fly ash exhibited relatively high strength

In another study Langley et al (1989) investigated structural concrete with high

volumes of Class F fly ash The use of 56 percent fly ash in concrete by weight of total

cementitious material resulted in achieving a compressive strength of 3770 psi at 7 days

7121 psi at 14 days and 9137 psi at 28 days Concrete type I was comparable with concrete

type III cement

Tarun and Shiw (DATE) ndash reference not listed investigated characteristics of concrete

by introducing fly ash obtained from various sources The study considered fly ash in the

range of 0 to 100 percent of mass cementitious medium looking at the influence of fly ash on

setting and hardening in concrete The addition of Class C fly ash in concrete was found to

act as a retardant in the setting process The mix with 50 to 60 percent fly ash resulted in the

maximum retardation process

Sivasundaram et al (1990) studied the selection of high-volume fly ash concretes in a

preliminary investigation of Class F fly ash at 58 percent replacement in total cementitious

material They concluded that although high values of fly ash could be used they do not

perform as well as normal concrete mixes It was mentioned that the high dosage of

superplaticizer adds to the materialrsquos workability but that it would likely slow the setting of

certain concrete mixes especially those with high cementitious material content

Ravina et al (1986) investigated ASTM Class F and Class C behavior with 30 and 50

percent fly ash replacement The results showed that the rate of volume of bleeding water

was either higher or the same as in the original mixes without fly ash The setting time was

typically delayed due to the addition of cementitious material such as fly ash Class F fly ash

use resulted in an increase in the rate and the total amount of bleeding However the amount

of setting time an average of two hours was longer with Class C fly ash than with Class F

Carette et al (1993) developed mix proportions for fly ash in concrete using 55 to 60

percent of ASTM Class F fly ash The evaluation of eight different mixes showed good

performance in workability bleeding setting time temperature rise and mechanical

properties

Carette et al (1990) also studied the use of fly ash as a cementitious material with

over 55 percent substituting for cement The investigation looked at the behavior of

mechanical properties of fly ash in cement with a WC of 035 and 030 adding

superplaticizer to get proper workability in the mixes with fly ash in concrete The physical

behavior of the high volume of fly ash was evaluated for particle side distribution non-

evaporable water pore size distribution electron-microscopically observations compressive

strength and modulus of elasticity The WC ratio in a paste of fly ash and cement was found

to correlate with the hydration of cement and the porosity of the paste Fly ash reaction with

CaOH2 between 3 and 7 days begins because of the large volume of fly ash introduced in

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 15: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

possessing cementitious properties The word pozzolan has come to mean a lime-seeking

cementing agent (University of Nebraska 2002)

The lime that combines with fly ash to produce strong durable cementitious

compounds comes from the hydration of the Portland cement But when Portland cement

combines with water during setting and hardening lime is liberated from some of the

compounds The amount of lime liberated appears to be about 15 to 20 percent of the cement

weight Under unfavorable circumstances a concrete structure may be subject to

disintegration due to the leaching of this lime from the mass One way to overcome this

problem is to mix or grind some pozzolanic material with the cement (fly ash combined with

lime) to form additional insoluble calcium silicates or cementitious compounds (University

of Nebraska 2002)

The physical size and shape of fly ash particles have a profound effect upon the

properties of concrete in the plastic stage Millions of very small glass beads contribute to

increasing plasticity--usually with less mixing water--and improving placing and finishing

For this reason great improvements in pumping qualities of concrete containing fly ash is

clarified (1) This last sentence doesnrsquot make sense but I canrsquot figure out how to fix it

The contribution of fly ash to sulfate resistance of concrete is also a big advantage of

fly ash Fly ash can improve the resistance of concrete to sulfate attack regardless of the type

of cement used The hydration of Portland cement results in the liberation of calcium

hydroxide (hydrated lime) at about 12 to 20 pounds per bag of cement thus increasing its

permeability In the case of sulfate attack the calcium hydroxide combines with the sulfates

in seawater to produce gypsum Since the newly-produced gypsum occupies a greater

volume than the original calcium hydroxide this results in disruption and disintegration of

the concrete The addition of fly ash is useful in this regard because the silica components of

ash combine with the liberated calcium hydroxide to form stable cementitious compounds

This reduces the amount of calcium hydroxide available for dissolution and thus preserves

the impermeability of the concrete This also means that there is less calcium hydroxide

available for the formation of gypsum and it is this fact that results in the dramatic increase

in sulfate resistance (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash used in large quantities and when stimulated hydraulically by the lime

produced by the hydration of Portland cement acts as an inhibitor of corrosion of steel in

reinforced concrete The extent to which this effect is present in ferrocement is yet to be

determined However an immersion test conducted by the Canadian Bureau of Fisheries

found that a mortar cover of one-sixteenth inch was sufficient to protect the steel from attack

provided that the mortar is of high density and imperviousness (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash in concrete also reduces heat of hydration which is advantageous in some

types of concrete uses such as machinery foundations and other massive structures

(American Concrete Institute 1987)

In the experimental investigation we tested concrete mixes with 40 percent fly ash

replacement by weight This investigation provided an opportunity to compare our results

with previous investigations of Class F fly ash

Class F fly ash has been introduced as a cementitious material in concrete which has

been reported by many investigators Tarun et al (DATE) ndash this reference is not listed at the

end of the chapter studied the incorporation of fly ash Class F and Class C in concrete mixes

for applications in high pavement work The study evaluated mixes with 40 percent Class F

fly ash and 50 percent Class C fly ash Their results for the Class F mixes show that the gain

in compressive strength was greater than the requirement for the mixes without fly ash

Compressive strengths for the mix with 40 percent of Class F fly ash were 2000 psi at 3 days

2500 psi at 7 days 4400 psi at 28 days 5300 psi at 56 days and 5900 psi at 365 days The

freeze and thaw results were 90 percent in excess of durability standards In the rest of the

evaluation results were in excess of or comparable to the concrete without fly ash as a

cementitious material

Langley et al (1992) investigated strength development and temperature rise in large

concrete blocks containing 55 percent low-calcium Class F fly ash A temperature rise in the

hydration of earlier ages in concrete with fly ash was observed One year later the blacks

with the high volume of fly ash exhibited relatively high strength

In another study Langley et al (1989) investigated structural concrete with high

volumes of Class F fly ash The use of 56 percent fly ash in concrete by weight of total

cementitious material resulted in achieving a compressive strength of 3770 psi at 7 days

7121 psi at 14 days and 9137 psi at 28 days Concrete type I was comparable with concrete

type III cement

Tarun and Shiw (DATE) ndash reference not listed investigated characteristics of concrete

by introducing fly ash obtained from various sources The study considered fly ash in the

range of 0 to 100 percent of mass cementitious medium looking at the influence of fly ash on

setting and hardening in concrete The addition of Class C fly ash in concrete was found to

act as a retardant in the setting process The mix with 50 to 60 percent fly ash resulted in the

maximum retardation process

Sivasundaram et al (1990) studied the selection of high-volume fly ash concretes in a

preliminary investigation of Class F fly ash at 58 percent replacement in total cementitious

material They concluded that although high values of fly ash could be used they do not

perform as well as normal concrete mixes It was mentioned that the high dosage of

superplaticizer adds to the materialrsquos workability but that it would likely slow the setting of

certain concrete mixes especially those with high cementitious material content

Ravina et al (1986) investigated ASTM Class F and Class C behavior with 30 and 50

percent fly ash replacement The results showed that the rate of volume of bleeding water

was either higher or the same as in the original mixes without fly ash The setting time was

typically delayed due to the addition of cementitious material such as fly ash Class F fly ash

use resulted in an increase in the rate and the total amount of bleeding However the amount

of setting time an average of two hours was longer with Class C fly ash than with Class F

Carette et al (1993) developed mix proportions for fly ash in concrete using 55 to 60

percent of ASTM Class F fly ash The evaluation of eight different mixes showed good

performance in workability bleeding setting time temperature rise and mechanical

properties

Carette et al (1990) also studied the use of fly ash as a cementitious material with

over 55 percent substituting for cement The investigation looked at the behavior of

mechanical properties of fly ash in cement with a WC of 035 and 030 adding

superplaticizer to get proper workability in the mixes with fly ash in concrete The physical

behavior of the high volume of fly ash was evaluated for particle side distribution non-

evaporable water pore size distribution electron-microscopically observations compressive

strength and modulus of elasticity The WC ratio in a paste of fly ash and cement was found

to correlate with the hydration of cement and the porosity of the paste Fly ash reaction with

CaOH2 between 3 and 7 days begins because of the large volume of fly ash introduced in

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 16: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

the concrete The addition of fly ash is useful in this regard because the silica components of

ash combine with the liberated calcium hydroxide to form stable cementitious compounds

This reduces the amount of calcium hydroxide available for dissolution and thus preserves

the impermeability of the concrete This also means that there is less calcium hydroxide

available for the formation of gypsum and it is this fact that results in the dramatic increase

in sulfate resistance (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash used in large quantities and when stimulated hydraulically by the lime

produced by the hydration of Portland cement acts as an inhibitor of corrosion of steel in

reinforced concrete The extent to which this effect is present in ferrocement is yet to be

determined However an immersion test conducted by the Canadian Bureau of Fisheries

found that a mortar cover of one-sixteenth inch was sufficient to protect the steel from attack

provided that the mortar is of high density and imperviousness (Carette and Malhotra 1990)

Fly ash in concrete also reduces heat of hydration which is advantageous in some

types of concrete uses such as machinery foundations and other massive structures

(American Concrete Institute 1987)

In the experimental investigation we tested concrete mixes with 40 percent fly ash

replacement by weight This investigation provided an opportunity to compare our results

with previous investigations of Class F fly ash

Class F fly ash has been introduced as a cementitious material in concrete which has

been reported by many investigators Tarun et al (DATE) ndash this reference is not listed at the

end of the chapter studied the incorporation of fly ash Class F and Class C in concrete mixes

for applications in high pavement work The study evaluated mixes with 40 percent Class F

fly ash and 50 percent Class C fly ash Their results for the Class F mixes show that the gain

in compressive strength was greater than the requirement for the mixes without fly ash

Compressive strengths for the mix with 40 percent of Class F fly ash were 2000 psi at 3 days

2500 psi at 7 days 4400 psi at 28 days 5300 psi at 56 days and 5900 psi at 365 days The

freeze and thaw results were 90 percent in excess of durability standards In the rest of the

evaluation results were in excess of or comparable to the concrete without fly ash as a

cementitious material

Langley et al (1992) investigated strength development and temperature rise in large

concrete blocks containing 55 percent low-calcium Class F fly ash A temperature rise in the

hydration of earlier ages in concrete with fly ash was observed One year later the blacks

with the high volume of fly ash exhibited relatively high strength

In another study Langley et al (1989) investigated structural concrete with high

volumes of Class F fly ash The use of 56 percent fly ash in concrete by weight of total

cementitious material resulted in achieving a compressive strength of 3770 psi at 7 days

7121 psi at 14 days and 9137 psi at 28 days Concrete type I was comparable with concrete

type III cement

Tarun and Shiw (DATE) ndash reference not listed investigated characteristics of concrete

by introducing fly ash obtained from various sources The study considered fly ash in the

range of 0 to 100 percent of mass cementitious medium looking at the influence of fly ash on

setting and hardening in concrete The addition of Class C fly ash in concrete was found to

act as a retardant in the setting process The mix with 50 to 60 percent fly ash resulted in the

maximum retardation process

Sivasundaram et al (1990) studied the selection of high-volume fly ash concretes in a

preliminary investigation of Class F fly ash at 58 percent replacement in total cementitious

material They concluded that although high values of fly ash could be used they do not

perform as well as normal concrete mixes It was mentioned that the high dosage of

superplaticizer adds to the materialrsquos workability but that it would likely slow the setting of

certain concrete mixes especially those with high cementitious material content

Ravina et al (1986) investigated ASTM Class F and Class C behavior with 30 and 50

percent fly ash replacement The results showed that the rate of volume of bleeding water

was either higher or the same as in the original mixes without fly ash The setting time was

typically delayed due to the addition of cementitious material such as fly ash Class F fly ash

use resulted in an increase in the rate and the total amount of bleeding However the amount

of setting time an average of two hours was longer with Class C fly ash than with Class F

Carette et al (1993) developed mix proportions for fly ash in concrete using 55 to 60

percent of ASTM Class F fly ash The evaluation of eight different mixes showed good

performance in workability bleeding setting time temperature rise and mechanical

properties

Carette et al (1990) also studied the use of fly ash as a cementitious material with

over 55 percent substituting for cement The investigation looked at the behavior of

mechanical properties of fly ash in cement with a WC of 035 and 030 adding

superplaticizer to get proper workability in the mixes with fly ash in concrete The physical

behavior of the high volume of fly ash was evaluated for particle side distribution non-

evaporable water pore size distribution electron-microscopically observations compressive

strength and modulus of elasticity The WC ratio in a paste of fly ash and cement was found

to correlate with the hydration of cement and the porosity of the paste Fly ash reaction with

CaOH2 between 3 and 7 days begins because of the large volume of fly ash introduced in

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 17: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

in compressive strength was greater than the requirement for the mixes without fly ash

Compressive strengths for the mix with 40 percent of Class F fly ash were 2000 psi at 3 days

2500 psi at 7 days 4400 psi at 28 days 5300 psi at 56 days and 5900 psi at 365 days The

freeze and thaw results were 90 percent in excess of durability standards In the rest of the

evaluation results were in excess of or comparable to the concrete without fly ash as a

cementitious material

Langley et al (1992) investigated strength development and temperature rise in large

concrete blocks containing 55 percent low-calcium Class F fly ash A temperature rise in the

hydration of earlier ages in concrete with fly ash was observed One year later the blacks

with the high volume of fly ash exhibited relatively high strength

In another study Langley et al (1989) investigated structural concrete with high

volumes of Class F fly ash The use of 56 percent fly ash in concrete by weight of total

cementitious material resulted in achieving a compressive strength of 3770 psi at 7 days

7121 psi at 14 days and 9137 psi at 28 days Concrete type I was comparable with concrete

type III cement

Tarun and Shiw (DATE) ndash reference not listed investigated characteristics of concrete

by introducing fly ash obtained from various sources The study considered fly ash in the

range of 0 to 100 percent of mass cementitious medium looking at the influence of fly ash on

setting and hardening in concrete The addition of Class C fly ash in concrete was found to

act as a retardant in the setting process The mix with 50 to 60 percent fly ash resulted in the

maximum retardation process

Sivasundaram et al (1990) studied the selection of high-volume fly ash concretes in a

preliminary investigation of Class F fly ash at 58 percent replacement in total cementitious

material They concluded that although high values of fly ash could be used they do not

perform as well as normal concrete mixes It was mentioned that the high dosage of

superplaticizer adds to the materialrsquos workability but that it would likely slow the setting of

certain concrete mixes especially those with high cementitious material content

Ravina et al (1986) investigated ASTM Class F and Class C behavior with 30 and 50

percent fly ash replacement The results showed that the rate of volume of bleeding water

was either higher or the same as in the original mixes without fly ash The setting time was

typically delayed due to the addition of cementitious material such as fly ash Class F fly ash

use resulted in an increase in the rate and the total amount of bleeding However the amount

of setting time an average of two hours was longer with Class C fly ash than with Class F

Carette et al (1993) developed mix proportions for fly ash in concrete using 55 to 60

percent of ASTM Class F fly ash The evaluation of eight different mixes showed good

performance in workability bleeding setting time temperature rise and mechanical

properties

Carette et al (1990) also studied the use of fly ash as a cementitious material with

over 55 percent substituting for cement The investigation looked at the behavior of

mechanical properties of fly ash in cement with a WC of 035 and 030 adding

superplaticizer to get proper workability in the mixes with fly ash in concrete The physical

behavior of the high volume of fly ash was evaluated for particle side distribution non-

evaporable water pore size distribution electron-microscopically observations compressive

strength and modulus of elasticity The WC ratio in a paste of fly ash and cement was found

to correlate with the hydration of cement and the porosity of the paste Fly ash reaction with

CaOH2 between 3 and 7 days begins because of the large volume of fly ash introduced in

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 18: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

material They concluded that although high values of fly ash could be used they do not

perform as well as normal concrete mixes It was mentioned that the high dosage of

superplaticizer adds to the materialrsquos workability but that it would likely slow the setting of

certain concrete mixes especially those with high cementitious material content

Ravina et al (1986) investigated ASTM Class F and Class C behavior with 30 and 50

percent fly ash replacement The results showed that the rate of volume of bleeding water

was either higher or the same as in the original mixes without fly ash The setting time was

typically delayed due to the addition of cementitious material such as fly ash Class F fly ash

use resulted in an increase in the rate and the total amount of bleeding However the amount

of setting time an average of two hours was longer with Class C fly ash than with Class F

Carette et al (1993) developed mix proportions for fly ash in concrete using 55 to 60

percent of ASTM Class F fly ash The evaluation of eight different mixes showed good

performance in workability bleeding setting time temperature rise and mechanical

properties

Carette et al (1990) also studied the use of fly ash as a cementitious material with

over 55 percent substituting for cement The investigation looked at the behavior of

mechanical properties of fly ash in cement with a WC of 035 and 030 adding

superplaticizer to get proper workability in the mixes with fly ash in concrete The physical

behavior of the high volume of fly ash was evaluated for particle side distribution non-

evaporable water pore size distribution electron-microscopically observations compressive

strength and modulus of elasticity The WC ratio in a paste of fly ash and cement was found

to correlate with the hydration of cement and the porosity of the paste Fly ash reaction with

CaOH2 between 3 and 7 days begins because of the large volume of fly ash introduced in

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 19: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

concrete as a cementitious material The formation of paste with low WC ratio CSH and low

CaOH2 contents produces a stronger matrix body

Malhotra (1990) investigated the durability of concrete with a high volume of Class F

fly ash The study looked at freeze and thaw cycles chloride permeability and mixes with a

very reactive limestone aggregate Mixes using fly ash as a cementitious material varied from

54 to 58 percent replacement Workability was enhanced by adding superplaticizer to the

blended mixes The results were satisfactory during freeze and thaw cycles with 99 percent

at 300 cycles with a scaling on the specimen

The University of Nebraska conducted an investigation in 2002 based on optimized

mixes of concrete with high quantities of fly ash from a power plant in Omaha Nebraska

The replacements of fly ash as cementitious material were 40 50 and 60 percent The results

showed that the mixes with fly ash developed good compressive strength at 28 days--even

better than those without fly ash The structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

4425 psi at 28 days whereas the non-structural mixes developed a compressive strength of

2464 psi at 28 days The flowable mix developed a compressive strength of 3176 psi at 28

days This investigation followed the specifications from ASTM standards Regarding what

Not clear what this last sentence has to do with the study

In addition to showing pozzolanic properties identical to those of Class F fly ash

Class C fly ash appears to have notable cementitious properties (ACI Material Journal

1987) This doesnrsquot appear to be listed in the references at the end of the chapter According

to the literature review (Cane 1979 Davis 1954 Mather 1982 ACI Committee Report

1987) I donrsquot see these references listed at the end of the chapter replacing cement with fly

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 20: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

ash in the production of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) may provide the following

significant benefits

bull Decrease the permeability of concrete

bull Improve resistance to weak acids and sulfates in RCP

bull Improve the workability of concrete

bull Make the pipe production equipment (wings and long bottoms) last longer due to

the lubricating effect

bull Increase the cohesiveness of fresh concrete removed early from forms

bull Reduce the amount of inside surface hairline cracks due to decreasing hydration

heat

However a high volume of fly ash instead of Portland cement (50-60 replacement)

was only applied when high early strength was not required (Canada Centre for Mineral and

Energy Technology 1993 (reference not listed at end of chapter) Giacciao ___ (reference

not listed) Malhotra 1990 Carette et al 1993 Sivasundarram et al 1990) Only a

comparatively low level of fly ash (not exceeding 25 percent replacement of Portland

cement) is permitted in the production of RCP according to ASTM C76-95a It might due to

inadequate early age compressive strength and insufficient durability and engineering

performance data of fly ash concrete

bull Since 1985 research (Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology 1993

Malhotra 1988 where is this reference Molhotra Carette et al 1993

Sivasundarram et al1990 ACI Committee Report 1987) has proven that large

quantities of Class F and Class C fly ash can be proportioned and mixed with

superplasticizers to improve concrete The concrete will have higher workability

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 21: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

adequate early strength (40 Mpa by 28 days) higher elastic modulus and better

long-term durability in chemically aggressive environments

Note I suggest you put all references at the end of your document instead of at the end of each chapter

References

1 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 232 (1987 Check date) Use of Fly Ash

in Concrete ACI 2322R-96

2 American Society for Testing and Materials (1990) Concrete and Aggregates Section 4

Vol 0402

3 Naik T R Ramme B W amp Tews JH (1995) Pavement Construction with High-

Volume Class C and Class F Ash Concrete ACI Materials Journal 92 2

4 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1992) Strength Development and

Temperature Rise in Large Concrete Block Containing High Volumes of Low-Calcium

(ASTM Class F) Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 89 4

5 Langley WS Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1989) Structural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ash ACI Materials Journal 865

6 Naik T R amp Singh S S (1997) Influence of Fly Ash on Setting and Hardening

Characteristics of Concrete Systems ACI Materials Journal 945

7 Sivasundaram V Carette GG amp Malhotra V M (1990) Selected Properties of High-

Volume Fly Ash Concrete Concrete International Design and Construction 12 10 pp

47-50

8 Ravina D amp Mehta PK (1986) Properties of Fresh Concrete Containing Large

Amounts of Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Research 16 pp 227-238

9 Carette G Bilodeau A Chevrier R amp Malhotra VM (1993) Mechanical Properties

of Concrete Incorporating High Volumes of Fly Ash from Sources in the US ACI

Materials Journal 90 6

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 22: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

10 Carette GG amp Malhotra VM (1990) Studies on Mechanism of Development of

Physical and Mechanical Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash-Cement Pastes Cement

and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 245-251

11 Malhotra VM (1990) Durability of Concrete Incorporating High-Volume of Low-

calcium (ASTM Class F) Fly Ash Cement and Concrete Composites 12 4 pp 271-277

12 University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2002) Concrete with High Volumes Fly Ash Class C

Optimization and Evaluation of Mechanical Properties with Local Material from Omaha

NE Report prepared for the Omaha Public Power District this is not a complete

citation of a report

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 23: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

CHAPTER 3

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH

31 Chemical Analysis of the Selected Specimens

Four samples of fly ash were collected from selected power plants in West Virginia

and sent to Midwest Laboratories in Omaha Nebraska for chemical analysis All of the fly

ash specimens were Class F referring to ASTM C618-Standard Specification for Coal Fly

Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzalan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete

ASTM C618 specifies that for Class F fly ash the sum of the oxides (SiO2+

Al2O3+Fe2O3) must be 70 percent or more of the chemical composition of the natural

pozzolans The chemical analyses of the fly ash samples from West Virginia power plants are

shown in Table 31

Table 31 Chemical Analysis Results

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 272 278 288 258

Total 7712 7538 6708 7138

Table 32 Chemical Requirements ()

Component Class F FA WV WV WV WV

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 51 488 381 454

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 234 238 261 234

Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 272 278 288 258

Sum gt 70 7712 7538 6708 7138

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 24: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Sulphur Trioxide (SO3) Max 5 037 037 026 028

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Max 15 014 014 008 008

Potassium Oxide (K2O) 01392 0136 0194 034 (I suggest looking at your table headers ndash it is not clear what you are reporting)

The minimum total percentage of class C fly ash is 50 percent and Class F is 70

percent All of the samples except one have a total percentage value below 70 percent and

therefore are class F fly ash Sample number 3 has a value closer to 70 than 50 therefore it

meets the criteria of class F fly ash

32 Strength Activity Index

The Strength Activity Index measures the reaction of cement with fly ash in mortar

ASTM C311 must be satisfied ldquomeeting either the 7 day and or 28 day Strength Activity

Indexrdquo for specification compliance A stabilization mechanism is of prime interest because

fly ash behaves like a mixture of cementitiouns material and cement in presence of moisture

but the remainder behaves as a reactive aluminous-siliceous Strength Activity Index in

Portland cement

Sample number 3 did not reach the ASTM C618 requirement of up to 70 percent for

Class F fly ash Therefore we applied the Strength Activity Index test to only those specific

samples which met the requirements (Does this sentence make sense now) Strength

Activity Index results are given in Table 33 below

Table 33 Strength Activity Index Results

Sample Designation

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Fly Ash

Compressive Strength Age 7 days

Av (psi) Original Strength Activity

Index with Cement

ASTM C311 Class F Fly Ash (Mineral Admixture) ()

1 2886 2961 97 75

2 3603 3576 101 75

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 25: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

3 3621 3763 96 75

4 3442 4088 84 75

The pozzolanrsquos Strength Activity Index had a wide range from 84 to 101 percent

For samples that did not meet the oxide sum test the Strength Activity Index was 96 percent

therefore meeting the 75 percent strength activity reaction required by ASTM C 311 The

results concluded that fly ash could be used for further investigation

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 26: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

CHAPTER 4

CONCRETE APPLICATIONS FOR FLY ASH UTILIZATION

41 Introduction

Since fly ash is composed mainly of silica it can be utilized as a cementitious

material in concrete mixes Using fly ash in concrete mixes has many advantages Among

these advantages are (1) saving of cement content (2) better workability pumpability and

cohesiveness of fresh concrete and (3) higher concrete strength and durability for hardened

concrete

In research conducted at the University of Nebraska in 1992 fly ash was successfully

used in producing lightweight high performance concrete masonry blocks As a result the

weight of a masonry block dropped from 38 pounds to 18 pounds while achieving a concrete

with strength as much as 6000 psi The research has been extremely successful The

lightweight block is now being produced by a local masonry company in Omaha Nebraska

and has been widely used in the Midwest Recently it was used in the construction of the

new $70 million Peter Kiewit Institute for the University of Nebraska on the Omaha campus

Today fly ash is used in highway bridges and has been used on a regular basis to

produce high performance concrete High performance concrete can be defined as a concrete

in which certain characteristics are developed for a particular application and environment

Examples of these characteristics are ease of placement compaction without segregation

early age strength long-term mechanical properties permeability density heat of hydration

and long life in severe environments Many concrete mixes are now available to produce

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 27: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

high performance concrete for precast bridge girders Most of these mixes have been

designed based primarily on strength criteria Durable concrete is usually achieved because

of the low permeability associated with high strength concrete and the use of a combination

of cementitious materials such as fly ash and silica fume

High-volume fly ash concrete mixes have been successfully used in Washington State

for bridge overlays In these mixes fly ash as much as 33 percent of the cement content was

used while maintaining the same compressive strength and durability for current mixes

without fly ash

The University of Nebraska is currently involved in a similar project with a local

power company in Omaha that aims to utilize fly ash in reinforced concrete applications

related to the power company such as prestressed concrete poles for transmission lines and

reinforced concrete slabs used in supporting electricity control boxes

42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications

421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)

Concrete masonry is a significant material in wall construction Over $10 billion

worth of masonry walls are constructed in the United States every year Because of the

success of the University of Nebraskarsquos research on utilization of fly ash for concrete

masonry units the most promising application that we will conduct the research could be this

application by following the previous project to find out the best mix of using fly ash from

West Virginia in CMUs

A high-quality CMU product should meet the minimum compressive and tensile

strength requirements should have permeability and moisture absorption characteristics to

withstand the severe weather should be economical and should have the lowest unit weight

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 28: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

possible A conclusion and recommendations of the mix that we will do a research from

selected fly ash will be provided (this sentence doesnrsquot make sense)

422 Concrete Pipe

4221 Introduction of Reinforced Concrete Pipe ( RCP)

Fly ash can be used in manufacturing concrete pipe In this application fly ash acts as

a cementitious material and as an aggregate mineral filler to enhance quality and economy

Properly proportioned mixtures containing fly ash make the concrete less permeable and

pipe containing fly ash may be more resistant to weak acids and sulfates Fly ash may allow

the producer to remove as much as 25 percent of the cement from a mix without sacrificing

strength while reducing the amount of water in the mix Fly ash is then used as a

cementitous material and aggregate mineral filler to promote added workability and

plasticity Equipment used in pipe production may last longer due to the lubricating effect of

the fly ash

4222 Background of Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP)

The history of concrete pipe manufacture may well go back over 2000 years

According to the Portland Cement Association ldquoThe Cloacae Maxima built in about 180

BC as part of Romersquos main sewer system was constructed mainly of stone masonry and

natural cement concreterdquo A portion of the ldquolong lasting serviceablerdquo concrete sewer is still

in use today The earliest modern day concrete pipe sewer system was built in the mid-19th

century while the earliest record of using concrete pipe in the United States is 1842 The first

reinforced concrete pipe was produced in 1905 Thirty-seven years later the first steel-

cylinder pre-stressed concrete pipe was manufactured (Portland Cement Association 2002)

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 29: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Five basic methods are used to manufacture concrete pipe They are

centrifugalspinning dry cast packerhead tamp-entail and wet-cast With the exception of

the wet-cast method all others use a very dry concrete mix According to the American

Concrete Pipe Associationrsquos Concrete Pipe Handbook the centrifugalspinning method uses

high speed rotating to compact the concrete by centrifugal force and force out excess water

content The dry cast method is similar to traditional methods used to prepare the mix and

place it into forms The mix is compacted by vibrating the outside form as well as inside the

concrete The packerhead method uses a machinersquos packerhead which revolves at a high

speed packing the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom of a vertical form

and is raised while revolving The freshly-made pipe can then be removed for curing The

tamp method uses hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes to tamp the mix between a

stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe can then be removed

immediately to cure (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

Concrete pipe is widely used in modern society as follows

bull Irrigation pipe for farm land

bull Water supply lines to large cities

bull Sanitary sewers

bull Culverts for carrying water under highways in non-urban areas

bull Storm drains

Concrete pipe has a large variety of sizes and shapes The sizes vary from 4 inches to

17 feet while shapes can be circular horizontal elliptical vertical elliptical arch or

rectangular (Portland Cement Association 2002)

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 30: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP

According to ASTM C76 and AASHTO M170 reinforced concrete pipes are divided

into five classes Class I Class II Class III Class IV and Class V The corresponding

strength requirements are shown in Table 41 As can be observed concrete strength at 5000

psi can be widely used in Reinforced Concrete Pipe from Class I to Class IV Therefore the

target for 28-day compressive strength of designed concrete mix in this research is

established at 5000 psi

Table 41 Design Requirements for Class I ndash Class V Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Class

D-load to produce 001

crack

D-load to produce the

ultimate loadConcrete

strength (psi) Wall Type

Internal Designated Diameter

(in) Wall Thickness

(in)

I 800 1200

4000

A 60-96 5-8

B 60-108 6-10

5000 A 102-108 85-9

II 1000 1500

4000

A

12-96

175-8

B 2-9

C 275-975

5000

A

102-108

85-9

B 95-10

C 1025-1075

III 1350 2000

4000

A 12-72 175-6

B

12-84

37660

C 275-875

5000

A 78-108 65-9

B

84-108

85-10

C 925-1075

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 31: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

IV 2000 3000

4000

B 12-54 2-55

C 12-66 275-725

5000

A 12-30 175-275

B 60-72 6-7

C 72-84 775-875

V 3000 3750 6000

B 12-54 2-5

C 12-72 275-775

(Can you get this table on one page) The RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO standards are listed in Table 42 ( Illinois

Concrete Pipe Association 2002)

Table 42 RCP-related ASTM and AASHTO Standards

Specification Designation Type Size

ASTM C 14 Non-Reinforced Concrete Sewer

8 through 36 AASHTO M 86 Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 76

Reinforced Concrete Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 170

Class I 60 through 144

Class II III IV amp V 12through 144

ASTM C 361 Reinforced Concrete Low-Head

Pressure Pipe 12 through 108

ASTM C 412

Concrete Drain Tile 4 through 36 AASHTO M 178

ASTM C 443 Joint for Circular Concrete Sewer and Culvert Pipe Using Rubber

Gaskets AASHTO M 198

ASTM C 478 Precast Reinforced Concrete

Manhole Sections AASHTO M 199

ASTM C 497 Standard Methods of Testing

Concrete Pipe or Tile

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 32: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

ASTM C 506

Reinforced Concrete Arch Culvert Storm and Sewer Pipe

AASHTO M 206 Equivalent Round

Class AII 18through 132

AIII AIV

ASTM C 507

Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe

AASHTO M 207

Class HE A HE I Equivalent Round

HE II HE III amp HE IV 18through 144

Class VE II VE III 36 through 144

VE IV VE V amp VE VI

ASTM C 655

Reinforced Concrete D-Load Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer

Pipe 12 through 144

AASHTO M 242

Specification Designation Type Size ASTM C 789 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box

Sections for Culverts Storm Drain and Sewers

Span x Rise

AASHTO M 259 3 x 12

Table 1 2 amp 3 12 x 12

ASTM C 822 Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Concrete Pipe and Related Products

ASTM C 850 Precast Reinforced Concrete Box Sections for Culverts Storm Drains and Sewers with less than 2 ft of Cover Subject to Highway Loading

Span x Rise

Table 1 amp 2 3 x 12

AASHTO M 273 12 x 12

ASTM C 877 External Sealing Bands for Non-Circular Concrete Sewer Storm Drain and Culvert Pipe

ASTM C 923 Resilient Connectors Between Reinforced Concrete Manhole Structures and Pipes

ASTM C 924 Low-Pressure Air Test of Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 969 Infiltration and Exfiltration Acceptance Testing of Installed

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 33: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

ASTM C 985 Non-Reinforced Concrete Specified Strength Culvert Storm Drain and Sewer Pipe Lines

ASTM C 1103 Joint Acceptance Testing of Installed Precast Concrete Pipe Sewer Lines

43 Concrete Railroad Ties

Another application of fly ash is in concrete railroad ties In the 1980s after

significant development in the US prestressed concrete industry and after investigation by

the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI) the

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) devised a

set of specifications in the AREA Manual for the use of prestressed concrete ties Compared

to timber ties that have been widely used in the US for many decades prestressed concrete

ties have the following advantages

bull Higher load capacity which makes them suitable for heavy railroad tracks and

allows the use of wider tie spacing (up to 30 inches)

bull Higher long-term economy because they have longer serving time

bull Minimal maintenance cost

bull No negative impact on the environment since no chemical treatment is needed

bull Protection of the national reserve of wood forests which need to be consumed to

produce timber ties

bull Disposal of concrete ties has no negative environmental impact

44 High Strength Concrete Mix for Specific Applications

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 34: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Use of fly ash is well accepted today although many still limit its application based

on some preconceived idea of cement replacement Almost all ready-mixed plants today

incorporate fly ash to the extent allowed for in specifications The need for utilization of fly

ash as a principal ingredient in todayrsquos high-tech concrete is recognized in order to provide

the long range boost in strength at ages greater than 28 days needed to achieve very high

compressive strength requirements

Despite the emphasis on performance specifications most design engineers working

with specifications are principally concerned with the design strength of concrete and have

little interest in the proportioning or the cost of concrete mixtures They still view fly ash as

some mysterious waste product that must be limited to assure the safety of their structures

Variations in the quality of fly ash have significantly less impact on the strength of concrete

than the variations in the quality of cement Concrete mixtures can be proportioned for a

given strength requirement as readily with fly ash as without

Most specifications and procedures restrict the weight relationships of fly ash and

cement in proportioning mixtures Regardless of the approach used it is always necessary to

determine both weight and volumetric relationships to balance yield

Several wet and dry mixes will be developed for utilization in different applications

Retaining walls and concrete poles are example of applications with wet mixes

The use of fly ash as a highway construction material is becoming more widespread

throughout the United States The retaining wall is one of the most promising applications of

a fly ash concrete mix A fly ash concrete mix also could be used in a high-strength precast

retaining wall in highway construction

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 35: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

References

1 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

2 American Concrete Pipe Association Concrete Pipe Hand Book (1959)

3 Portland Cement Association http www

portcementorgcbconcreteproducts_pipeasp Feb11 2002

4 Illinois Concrete Pipe Association httpwwwil-concretepipeorgsculver1htm July

22 2002

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 36: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

CHAPTER 5

OPTIMIZATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES WITH FLY ASH

51 Introduction

The optimization of concrete mixtures with fly ash was divided into two categories in

this project (1) optimization in wet mixtures and (2) optimization in dry mixtures This

classification was based on potential applications

The chemical analysis presented in Chapter 3 showed that fly ash samples from the

selected West Virginia power plants satisfied ASTM C618 requirements for use in concrete

52 Category I Optimization in Wet Mixtures

Results from previous research by Sirivivatnanon et al (1993) show that 40 percent

fly ash C can be used as replacement of cement by weight while maintaining the same

characteristics of the original mixtures In the optimization with fly ash F 40 percent will be

used as a starting point for the optimization process

521 Original Mixtures

Table 51 summarizes the mixtures considered in this optimization Workability and

compressive strength were used as primarily criteria for evaluation

Table 51 Original Mixtures

Original Mix

Req Strength at (28days) Slump

psi in

L-6 AE 3500 6

MBL5AE 3581 6

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 37: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

MKL7AE- 5000 6

HPC-32F 10000 7

Self-Compacting 8000 Circle Diameter 28 in

522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications

5221 L6AE-40F Mix

This mixture was adopted from previous investigation (Malhotra et al 1990) The

target compressive strength at 28 days is 3500 psi Several investigations (CANMET 1993

Cane 1979 Collepardi et al 1989 David 1954 EPRI 1993 EIA 1992 GAI Consultants

1979 Giacciao amp Mahotra 1988) Langley et al 1989 Malhotra et al 1990) have showed

that 40 percent of fly ash can be used to replace cement by weight Two types of cement

type I and type III were used in the evaluation Table 52 summarizes the gain in

compressive strength with time

Table 52 L6AE-40F Mix

Time Mix 1 ndash Type I Mix 2 ndash Type III

Days psi psi

1 507 1000

14 3897 4695

21 4760 5288

28 5356 5566

5222 Mixes Adopted From West Virginia

Several mixes were adopted from the West Virginia Department of Transportation

which were used in this investigation to evaluate using fly ash as a cementitious material

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 38: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Forty percent of fly ash was used to replace cement by weight Tables 53 and 54 show the

compressive strength obtained in these trials

Table 53 MBL5AE Mix

Time

Compressive Strength psi days 1 514

3 2112

7 3104

14 3630

21 4213

28 4647

Table 54 MKL7AE Mix

Time Class K (1) Class K (2)

days psi psi

1 685 NA

3 3052 3817

7 4082 4291

14 5051 5584

21 5504 5958

28 5709 6251

523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix

Self-compacting concrete is a followable mix which requires no vibration In

addition self-compacting concrete maintains higher compressive strength This trial mix

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 39: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

used 27 percent of fly ash Class F The results of this evaluation are summarized in Table

55

Table 55 Self-Compacting Mixes

Time SC (1) SC (2) SC (3)

days psi psi psi

1

2 1793 2133

7 5512 5264 7325

14 5620 6098 8569

21 6760 6350 9113

28 6888 8349 8769

53 Proposed New Mixes

Based on the recommendations from the optimization several mixes were proposed

for utilization Table 56 shows the comparison between the original mixes and the optimized

mixes The identification names for the proposed mixes are also given in Table 56 The new

name L6AE-40F means that the equivalent of 6 sacks of cement is used and 40F means that

40 percent of the total cementitious material is replaced by fly ash

Table 56 Proposed Mixes

Original Mix Req Strength

(28days) Trial Mix Compressive Strength

at 28days Slump(in)

L-6 AE 3500 L-6 AE-40F 5566 6

MBL5AE 3581 MBL5AE-40F 4647 6

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 40: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

MKL7AE 5000 MKL7AE-40F 6251 6

HPC-32F 10000 HPC-32F 5352 7

Self-Compacting 8000 SC-40F 9445 28 in Circle

531 Details of the Proposed Mixes

Portland cement was replaced by 40 percent Class F fly ash in all the mixes

Limestone Type 47B as well as sand and gravel came from Omaha Nebraska Water

reducer (WR) and superplaticizer (HRWR) were used per 100 pounds of the total

cementitious material

The mixture proportions for the structural application mix (L6AE-40F) Marshall

mixes (MBL5AE-40F and MKL7AE-40F) high performance concrete mix (HPC-32F) and

the self -compacting concrete mix (SC-40F) are shown in Tables 57 through 512

5311 Structural Application Mixes (Why do you have this section Suggest

deleting Or put an opening sentence in here before you go into the table It looks weird

otherwise)

Table 57 L6AE-40F Mix

Original Mix (L-6AE) Modified Mix (L6AE-40F)

Cement (I-III) 564 lb 338 lb

Fly Ash ---- 226 lb

Sand amp Gravel 2129 lb 1673 lb

47B Limestone 913 lb 1369 lb

Water 2482 lb 2482 lb

Air Entrainment 6 6

HRWR --- 10oz100lb

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 41: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal B Marshal B

(MBL5AE-40F)

Cement 470 lb 352 lb

Fly Ash 64 lb 182 lb

Sand 1228 lb 1228 lb

47B Limestone 1813 lb 1813 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

Table 59 MKL7AE-40F Mix

Original Mix Modified Mix

Marshal K Marshal K

(MKL7AE-40F)

Cement 658 lb 434 lb

Fly Ash ---- 224 lb

Sand 1186 lb 1186 lb

47B Limestone 1775 lb 1776 lb

Water 246 lb 246 lb

Air Entrainment 7 7

HRWR 2 oz100 lb 2 oz100 lb

5312 High Performance Concrete Mix

Suggest an opening sentence before you give the table

Table 510 HPC-32F Mix

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 42: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Cement 680 lb

Fly Ash 320 lb

Sand amp Gravel 1300 lb

47B Limestone 1450 lb

Water 320 lb

Air Entrainment 6

Water Reducer 4 oz100 lb

HRWR 20 oz100 lb

5313 Self Compacting Concrete Mix

Ditto on the opening sentence

Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes

Self-Compacting (1) Self-Compacting Self-Compacting

Cement 73763 lb 73763 lb 570 lb

Fly Ash 27496 lb 27496 lb 295 lb

Sand amp Gravel 132425 lb 132425 lb 1250 lb

Sand 88283 lb 820 lb 890 lb

47B Limestone 56266 lb 620 lb 900 lb

Water 294 lb 29484 lb 246 lb

HRWR 35 oz100 lb 26 oz100 lb 46 oz100 lb

WR - 2 oz100 lb -

54 Summary of the Optimization Process

The optimizations were based on replacing cement with fly ash The results showed

that up to 40 percent by weight of fly ash can be used while maintaining the characteristics of

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 43: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

the original mixtures These results were consistent with previous investigations previously

cited in this report

Several mixes were evaluated during the optimization Compressive strength and

workability were the primarily evaluation criteria

The mechanical properties of the proposed mixes should be considered in the final

evaluation of these mixes However this process is time-consuming and labor-intensive

Therefore mechanical properties of a common mix MKL7AE-40F from Marshall DOT will

be evaluated This mix was evaluated during the optimization process

55 Evaluation of Mechanical Properties

551 Introduction

The optimization was based on percent replacement of fly ash in cement by weight

resulting in MKL7AE-40F which gave the optimum compressive strength The evaluation of

mechanical and physical properties of fly ash in concrete in this mix was based on the

following () Table 20 Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of

Rupture to meet ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid

Freeze and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test was conducted because the mix would be exposed to

environmental changes This gave us a framework for the purpose of these tests materials

used specimen details fabrication instrumentation test set-up and test procedures for

ultimate compressive strength and for Modulus of Elasticity Our complete analysis will not

be discussed further in this report due to time constraints (Is there a better way to say this)

Table 512 presents information on materials testing test specifications test

specimens the number of specimens tested in each category and the test date since casting

Figure 51 shows the number of specimens that were evaluated

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 44: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Table 512 Mechanical Evaluation Summary

Test ASTM

Specimen Date

XXXX-40F (days)

Compressive Strength C 39-86 60 cylinders 28

Modulus of Rupture C 78-84 6 beams 28

Modulus of Elasticity C 469-87a 18 cylinders 137142128

Freeze ndash Thaw

C 666-92

17 beams 14

Procedure ldquoArdquo Freezing and thawing

in water

Figure 51 Mechanical Evaluation of Number of Specimens

552 Mechanical Properties

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 45: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

5521 Workability

After a super plasticizer was added to the MKL7AE-40F mix the mix maintained the

same workability as the original (WHAT ORIGINAL) Figures 52 and 533 show the

slump and measurement of air entrainment

Figure 52 Slump MKL7AE-40F Mix

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 46: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Figure 53 Air Entrainment Measurement

5522 Modulus of Elasticity

For normal weight of concrete Ec was calculated by Ec= 57000 cf Therefore

results represent a typical stress-strain curve for concrete in compression the initial modulus

it is taken with the 40 percent from the compressive strength loaded (this sentence does not

make sense) Table 513 shows modulus of elasticity results after 3 7 14 21 and 28 days

Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results

Age (days) cf

(psi) Ec ( psi) Ec ACI Eq (851) (psi)

3 2580 3402200 2895241

7 3245 4102700 3246999

14 () () ()

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 47: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

21 () () ()

28 () () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided later in the

investigation

5523 Modulus of Flexure

Tensile strength in flexure was measured in accordance with ASTM C 78 which also

considered cracking and deflection of the beam This test was conducted using two point

loads The results are shown in Table 514

Table 514 Flexure Test MKL7AE-40F Mix

Days Av Width (in) Av Width (in) Load (lbs) Modulus (psi)

7 6 6 5465 531

14 6 6 () ()

21 6 6 () ()

28 6 6 () ()

Total - - () ()

Note () These results are not available they will be provided at a later time

553 Compressive Strength

ACI 318318R-99 specifies that in order to test the compressive strength of a newly-

developed mix it is required to test 60 cylinders at 28 days The 60 cylinders should be

tested to collect statistical data for comparisons of the new mix design Therefore 60

cylinders will be tested to determine concrete compressive strength after 28 days

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 48: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix

A total of 17 specimens will be used for freeze-thaw cycle testing The cycles will

begin at 14 days after curing in order to meet the requirements of ASTM C 666

555 Conclusions

This study was undertaken to investigate the possibility of using fly ash produced

from power plants located in West Virginia with Class F fly ash Fly ash from sources in

West Virginia was used in different concrete mixes The objective of this project was to find

efficient and effective uses of fly ash in concrete mixes Chemical and physical analyses

were used to determine if the fly ash met ASTM C618 specifications for fly ash utilization in

concrete The West Virginia fly ash met these requirements The next step was to determine

the amount of fly ash by weight that could serve as replacement A replacement of 40

percent fly ash was determined to be our starting point based on previous investigations

This research was carried out to investigate performance of structural grade concrete

incorporating high volumes of fly ash ASTM Class F fly ash was used Portland cement

concrete designed to have 28-day compressive strength of 5000 psi from the optimum mix

MKL7AE-40F was used in this investigation as a control concrete Concrete mixes were

also designed to have fly ash substitution based on total cement weight in the range of 40

percent by weight The water-to-cementitious ratio was maintained approximately constant

and the desired workability was achieved by using a superplaticizer

Concrete was tested for compressive strength modulus of elasticity and modulus of

flexure in accordance with ASTM test methods Modulus of Elasticity and compressive

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 49: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

strength of concrete were determined at ages 3 and 7 days whereas modulus of flexure was

determined at 7 days

The high replacement of cement by Class F fly ash in concrete caused a reduction in

workability within the experimental range Compressive strength of fly ash concrete was

slightly higher than the reference concrete of fly ash addition of 40 percent However the

workability was solved by using superplaticizer in the mixes

The results revealed that a 40 percent Class F fly ash replacement was more effective

when compared with concrete with Class C substitution as cementitious material (Please

check this last sentencemdashI might have misconstrued it) However further investigation

should be done in the following areas

bull Compressive strength to meet ACI 318-99318R-99 Modulus of Rupture to meet

ASTM C78 Modulus of Elasticity to meet ASTM C469-87a The Rapid Freeze

and Thaw ASTM C666-84 test to be conducted to the mix X MKL7AE-40F

bull The self-compacting mix needs to be evaluated for workability

56 Category II Optimization in Dry Mixtures (Optimization in RCP design mix)

561 Concrete Materials

The basic mixture was developed from Class III 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe

Mix Design (Table 515) currently used by Concrete Industries Inc which contains 25

percent ASTM Class C fly ash of the total weight of cementitious material A range of 25 to

75 percent Portland cement was replaced by Class C Fly ash and Class F Fly ash The

mixture was made in the laboratory by the following materials

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 50: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Table 515 Class III Reinforced Concrete Pipe Mix Design (per cubic yard)

RPC Size Sand (lb) Rock (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Cement (lb) Water (GL) LPC (oz)

18 2545 755 165 495 20 15

5611 Cement

ASTM Type I and II cement is used in the mixture According to AA

Ramezanianpour (1995) (List in references) there is no major difference in strength in the

concrete made with ASTM Type I cement even if superplasticizer is added However

concrete made with ASTM Type V cement has lower strengths when superplasticizer is

added

5612 Fly ash

ASTM Class F fly ash is produced in West Virginia ASTM Class C Fly ash which is

used as comparison with Class F fly ash is produced in Omaha Nebraska The chemical

composition analysis of Class F fly ash is shown in Table 516 The Class ___C or F fly ash

used in this research was produced at the same plant (as what In WV or NE) but in

different batches as shown in Table 516

Table 516 Chemical Composition Analysis of Class C and Class F Fly Ash

Parameter Class C Class F

Al2O3 187 2340

Fe2O3 59 272

SiO2 39 5100

SO3 23 037

N2O - 014

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 51: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

K2O - 036

Total Alkali 059(equv Na2O) 3840

LOI 07 082

5613 Aggregates

The coarse aggregate is crushed limestone The grade of rock is controlled by the

same sieve analysis used in concrete pipe as shown in Table 5 The fine aggregate is coarse

concrete sand

Table 517 Aggregate Data

Screen 12 38 4 8 16 20 200

Spec 010 3060 85100 95100 97100

Retained 5 40 96 98 98 98 99

5614 Superplasticizer

A water- reducing admixture called Rheobuild 1000 was used in the mixture to

improve the workability of fresh concrete during the compaction It met the requirements of

ASTM C 494-99a (Requirements for type A and Type F admixtures) A ratio of 2 percent of

total weight of cementitious material was used in the mixtures

562 Mixture Proportions

Class F and Class C fly ash concrete samples were formed in the laboratory from

March to June 2002 To optimize the dry mix six different mix designs for each type of fly

ash were used in the compressive strength tests The weight ratio between fly ash and total

cementitious material in each batch varied from 25 to 75 percent The quantity of each batch

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 52: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

of concrete mix was one-half cubic yard The detailed mixture proportion is shown in Table

518

Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)

F(F+C) SP W(F+C) Water F(F+C) Fly ash Cement Sand Rock

25

2 25 305 25 305 915 47 1398

100ml 122

35

2 25 305 35 427 793 47 1398

100ml 122

45

2 25 305 45 549 671 47 1398

100ml 122

55

2 25 305 55 671 549 47 1398

100ml 122

65

2 25 305 65 793 427 47 1398

100ml 122

75

2 25 305 75 915 305 47 1398

100ml 122

563 Procedure

The objective of this step of the research was to optimize the dry mix design of Class

F fly ash The compressive strength of the dry mixes was tested under laboratory conditions

Seven 4-inch by 8-inch concrete cylinders were made from each batch of dry mix in a

laboratory at the University of Nebraska in Omaha The procedures for making samples

followed the requirements of ASTM C192 Each batch of concrete was mixed for four

minutes using an electric mixer Then the mix was placed into 4rdquox 8rdquo cylinder modules and

compacted by a vibrating table to duplicate the revolving compaction tool used in RCP

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 53: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

manufacture The samples were removed as soon as the concrete set The concrete samples

were then placed in a common room temperature environment for 3 7 or 28 days The

weight of the samples was measured using an electric scale before capping After being

capped the compressive strengths were determined

564 Results

5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete

As shown in Table 519 the average density of 7-day Class C fly ash concrete

gradually dropped as the portion of fly ash increased in cementitious materials But the

density of Class F fly ash concrete shows a convex curve which has a peak between 35 and

45 percent indicating that the maximum strength may be in the same range The average

density of 40 percent Class F fly ash concrete at 3 and 28 days is shown in Table 520

Table 519 Average Density of Fly Ash Concrete at 7 Days (lbcubic foot)

F(F+C) 25 35 45 55 65 75

Density

Class C 151193 150998 150802 15074 148098 147928

Class F 148996 15056 149265 145037 145037 143926 Note Density of 35 Class C fly ash is interpolated

Table 520 Average Density of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 3 and 28 days

Age 3D 28D

Average Density 15017 14929

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 54: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete

The compressive strength of Class F fly ash at the age of 7 days is shown in Table

521 and Figure 54 The optimized compressive strength ranges from 35 to 45 percent

ASTM Class F fly ash The compressive strength begins to drop quickly after 45 percent

Class F fly ash is used as a cementitious material

Table 521 Compressive Strength of Class F Fly Ash Concrete at 7 days (psi)

F(C+F) 25 35 45 55 65 75

1 5070 5090 4597 NA NA 1687

2 5169 4945 4530 3636 2479 1721

3 5482 5230 4536 3465 2534 1693

4 NA 5625 4519 3619 NA NA

5 5104 4953 NA 3623 2600 NA

6 NA 5642 4426 3669 2649 1672

7 5402 4951 4557 NA 2486 1624

Average 52454 5205143 45275 36024 25496 16794

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 55: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Sly Ash in Cementitious Materials

7 D

ay C

ompr

essi

ve S

treng

th

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 54 7 Day Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength (psi)

To maximize the quantity of fly ash used we chose 40 percent Class F fly ash as our

optimized design mix The 7-day compressive strength of 40 percent Class F fly ash is near

5000 psi which is close to our requirement of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days as

described in our background review Hence 3-day and 28-day compressive strength tests on

the optimized Class F fly ash concrete (40 percent Class F fly ash replacement) was done as

shown in Table 522 and Figure 55

Table 522 Compressive Strength of 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

F(C+F) 3 Day 7 Day 28 Day

1 3989 NA 5891

2 NA NA 5804

3 3564 NA 6024

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 56: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

4 3992 NA 5852

5 3643 NA NA

6 3650 NA NA

7 3965 NA NA

Average 3801 4887 5893

Note Compressive strength of 7D is interpolated

40 Class F Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (D )

Average

Figure 55 40 Class F Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength with Age

5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete

The 7-day compressive strength of different percentages of ASTM Class C fly ash

decreases gradually as the portion of fly ash increases as shown in Table 523 and Figure

56 The optimized portion of 7-day compressive strength is around 25 to 35 percent Class C

fly ash This research aims to utilize the largest amount of fly ash in RCP Because the 7-day

compressive strength of 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was near our target strength

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 57: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

of 5000 psi the 65 percent Class C fly ash replacement was the optimized design mix chosen

for the 28- day compressive strength test and in future field tests The 28-day compressive

strength of optimized Class C fly ash concrete is shown in Table 524 and Figure 57

Table 523 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi) at the age of 7 days

F(C+F) 25 45 55 65 75

1 6390 5927

2 6343 5633 4613 3882

3 5806 5237 4680 4108

4 6250 5833 5306 4926 3899

5 5863 5392 4557

6 6202 5611 5279 3682

7 6107 4817 3892

Average 6258 5779 5304 4719 3893

100 Type I II 6255 6255 6255 6255 6255

7 day Class C Fly Ash Concrete Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Percentage of Fly Ash in Cementitious Materials

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

Average

100 Type I II Portland Cement

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 58: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Figure 56 Compressive Strength of Class C Fly Ash Concrete (psi)

Table 525 Compressive Strength of ClassC Fly Ash at the age of 7 days and 28 days (psi)

F(C+F) 7 day 28 day

1 NA 5218

2 4613 NA

3 4680 5306

4 4926 5264

5 4557 5118

6 NA 5312

7 4817 5117

Average 4719 5223

65 Class C Fly Ash Compressive Strength

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Compressive Strength (psi)

Age (Day)

Average

Figure 57 Compressive Strength of 65 Class C Fly Ash Concrete with age

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 59: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

565 Material Cost Analysis

Using the optimized mix in this research a concrete mix with 40 percent ASTM

Class F fly ash or 65 percent ASTM Class C fly ash replacement could be used in RCP If the

total consumption of Portland cement in the United States is 3 million tons annually a

minimum of 450000 tons of Class F fly ash or 12 million tons of Class C fly ash could be

utilized by the RCP industry If the price difference between fly ash and cement is calculated

as $60 per ton an estimated $27 million (with Class F fly ash) or $72 million (with Class C

fly ash) could be saved per year on a national basis

566 Conclusions

In this study both 40 percent Class F fly ash and 65 percent Class C fly ash

replacement reached the target of 5000 psi compressive strength at 28 days therefore both

classes of fly ash could be applied to Class I to Class IV RCP manufacture according to

ASTM C76 The material cost analysis for the above optimized concrete mix shows great

benefit in the above fly ash replacement plan Since our literature review shows other

advantages to replacing cement with fly ash increasing the replacement portion of fly ash in

RCP might be another milestone for the concrete industry

References

1 American Coal Ash Association Washington DC 1992 estimates based on data

reported in August of 1993

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 60: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

2 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 1987 Use of Fly Ash in Concrete ACI

Committee Report (Report no ACI 2263R-87) ACI Material Journal (September-

October 1987)

3 Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) (1993)

Investigation of high-volume fly ash concrete systems (Report No TR-1013151)

Palo Alto CA Electric Power Research Institute (ERPI)

4 Cane C J 1979 ldquo Fly Ash- A New Resource Materialrdquo Concrete (Chicago) V47

No7 Nov pp 28-32

5 Collepardi M Monosi S Valente M ldquoOptimization of Superplasticizer Type and

Dosage in Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concreterdquo Superplasticizers and Other Chemical

Admixtures in concrete proceedings Third International Conference Ottawa Canada

1989 pp425-443

6 Davis Raymond E 1954 ldquo Pozzolanic Materials- With Special Reference to Their

Use in Concrete Piperdquo Technical Memorandum American Concrete Pipe

Association Vienna pp 14-15

7 Electric Power Research Institute (1993) Institutional constraints to coal fly ash in

construction (Report No TR-1016868S) Palo Alto CA Author

8 Energy Information Administration Office of Energy Markets and End Use (1992)

Annual energy review Washington DC US Department of Energy

9 GAI Consultants Coal Ash Disposal Manual FP-1257250 pp Palo Alto Calif

Electric Power Research Institute 1979

10 Giacciao GM amp Malhotra V M (1988) Concrete imcorporating high volumes of

ASTM Class F fly ash ASTM Cement Concrete and Aggregates 10 (1) pp88-95

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 61: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

11 Langley Willbert S Carette George G Malhotra V M ldquoStructural Concrete

Incorporating High Volumes of ASTM Class F Fly Ashrdquo ACI Materials Journal (

American Concrete Institute) v 86 n5 Sep-Oct 1989 p507-514

12 Malhotra VM Carette GG Bilodeau A amp Sivasundaram V (1990) Some

aspect of durability of high-volume ASTM Class F (Low-calcium) fly ash concrete

MSL Division Report (Report no MSL 90-20) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and

Resources

13 Manz OE (January 1993) Worldwide production of coal ash and utilization in

concrete and other products Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 2

P64-1

14 Mather Katharine 1982 ldquo Current Research in Sulfate Resistance ate the Waterway

Experiment Stationrdquo George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

SP-77 American Concrete Institute Detroit pp 63-74

15 Nobuhiro Kawaguchi Kiyoshi Kohno and Masakazu Mita ldquoInfluences of

Superplasticizer Mixing time Mixing Temperature and Cement Content on High-

volume Fly Ash Concreterdquo Materials Science Research International Vol 2 No 4

1996 pp242-247

16 Ramezanianpour AA Sivasundaram V Malhotra VM ldquoSuperplasticizers Their

Effect on the Strength Properties of Concreterdquo Concrete International v17 4 Apr

1995 p30-35 American Concrete Inst Detroit MI USA

17 Sivasundram V Carette GG and Malhotra VM (1988) Properties of concrete in

corporating low quantity of cement and high volumes of low-calcium fly ash MSL

Division Report (Report no MSL88-) Ottawa Canada Energy Mines and Resources

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 62: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

18 Sirivivatnanon V Cao HT amp Nelson P (1993) Development of high volume fly

ash concrete in Australia Proceedings 10th International Ash Use Symposium 3

(EPRI Report No TR-101774)

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 63: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

CHAPTER 6

FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Pipe-Field Test

61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the

section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)

According to John Duffu of ACPA the annual consumption of Portland cement for

manufacturing concrete pipe (exclude man hole) in the United States is about 3000000 tons

Providing 40 percent replacement by fly ash subtracting 25 percent that could be already

replaced by fly ash according to ASTM 15 percent more fly ash could be utilized in concrete

pipe industry Thus 450000 tons more fly ash could be utilized annually This research aims

to optimize design mix of fly ash replacement in RCP and maximize the utilization of fly ash

in RCP manufacture

62 Introduction

Utilizing fly ash instead of Portland cement in reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) is

considered to be one of the most efficient methods of consuming large quantities of this by-

product of coal combustion power plants Optimal mix designs were developed in lab

environments with the idea of using a high volume of Class F fly ash in RCP manufacture

based on the currently used formulas in the RCP industry A 40 percent replacement with

Class F fly ash achieving compressive strengths over 5000 psi at the age of 28 days was

considered to be the optimized mix design This mix design could be widely used in Class I

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 64: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

to Class IV RCP according to ASTM and AASHTO standards A 65 percent Class C

replacement which was optimized by the same laboratory test was also used in the field test

to compare with Class F replacement results To replicate the RCP manufacturing procedure

by a vibrating table () superplasticizer eleven times greater in volume than the original

formula was added to the samples during our lab tests To verify the lab-developed mix

design a field test was conducted at Concrete Industries Inc in Lincoln Nebraska The

samples of RCP using the developed mix were manufactured on October 15 2002

63 Field Test Procedure

The field test included three phases (1) manufacturing the RCP with the developed

mix design (2) a three-edge bearing test and (3) a compressive strength test of the cylinder

The RCP manufactured for the field test had an 18-inch diameter

631 Field Test Mix Design

The six mix designs used in the field test are shown in Table 61 Batches V and VI

are considered to be the control batches

Table 61 ndash NEED NAME OF TABLE HERE

Batch Number Fly ash Type amp

PercentageMoisture content (per

CY) RCP Number

I 40 Class F 194 G 19-Dec

II 40 Class F 177G 20-26

III 65 Class C 146G 27-31

IV 65 Class C 182G 32-36

V 40 Class C 17G 37-41

VI 25 Class C 17G gt42

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 65: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

632 RCP Manufacturing (some of this section is repetitive of information given in

an earlier chapter)

In RCP manufacturing the ldquopackerhead methodrdquo is still in use today According to

our literature review the basic concept of this method is ldquoto revolve the lsquo Packerheadrsquo on the

machine in a high speed to pack the dry mix against the outside form It starts at the bottom

of a vertical form and is raised while revolving The freshly made pipe could be removed

immediately to cure Tamp method is using hard wood tempers fitted with metal shoes tamp

the mix between a stationary inside core and revolving outside form The finished pipe could

also be removed immediately to curerdquo (American Concrete Pipe Association 1959)

6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure

The RCP manufacturing procedure is primarily divided into three parts

bull Mixing the material

bull Processing with the packerhead machine and

bull Removing the form and finishing

A flow chart of the procedure is shown in Figure 61 In the first part of the

procedure the raw materials ie Portland cement fly ash LPC aggregates and water are

mixed together The quantity of each type of material is controlled by a computer system

(see Figure 62) The moisture content is adjusted by the moisture content of the aggregates

based on the mix design Then the mixed materials are delivered to a hopper in the

Packerhead Machine by a conveyor (see Figure 63) At the same time samples of the mix

materials are gathered to make the control cylinder by the shock table as shown in Figure

64

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 66: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Figure 61 Flow Chart of RCP Manufacturing Procedure

Figure 62 RCP Computer Control System

Figure 63 Conveyor and Hopper

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 67: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Figure 64 Shock Table

The schematic of the packerhead equipment is shown in Figures 65 through 67 A

round-shape turntable with a 79 38-inch diameter is built on the ground under the

packerhead machine as shown in Figure 1 (is this figure number correct) Two pairs of

round pipe tables are located on the turntable Each pair of pipe tables is for a different size

of RCP Before processing the packerhead machine a form of RCP is prepared After the end

form of the RCP is put on a pipe table a welded metal cage is put onto the end form Then

the metal pipe form is loaded outside of the metal cage by a crane as shown in Figure 8 ()

The RCP form with the metal cage is delivered under the packerhead machine by rotating the

turntable The packerhead machine then begins to process The process of the packerhead

machine is controlled by a computer as shown in Figure 9 A camcorder is used to tape the

entire process of the packerhead inside the RCP form After finishing the process the

finished RCP is sent out by rotating the turntable In the meantime another prepared form is

ready for processing

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 68: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Figure 65 Plan View of RCP Equipment ( Packerhead Machine)

Figure 66 Side View of RCP Equipment (Packerhead Machine)

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 69: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Figure 67 Cross head amp Roller head (packerhead)

Figure 68 RCP with welded metal cage

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 70: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Figure 69 Packerhead control system

In the third part of the RCP procedure the finished RCP is moved onto a concrete

table with a crane After form removing and edge finishing a number is written on the RCP

to record the manufacture date and batch Figures 610 to 612 illustrate the final steps in the

RCP manufacturing process

Figure 610 Moving an RCP after processing

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 71: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

Figure 611 Form Removal

Figure 612 Edge finishing

64 Field Test Results

641 Three-edge Bearing Test

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 72: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

A Three-edge bearing test was done according to ASTM C497 The test results are

shown in Table 62 and Figure 613 The crack load and the ultimate failure load of the RCP

made of the optimized design mixes were equivalent to those of the control mixes All RCP

cracking load and ultimate failure load values dropped at 28 days due to the abnormal cold

weather conditions in late October and early November in Lincoln Nebraska The

temperature dropped below 32deg F during the test After 17 freeze-thaw cycles that occurred

during these weather conditions as shown in Table 63 the developed mix designs were still

equivalent to those currently used in RCP manufacture An interesting observation was made

during the three-edge bearing test The crack developed slowly in 65 percent Class C and 40

percent Class C fly ash RCP which usually occurs in larger RCP

Table 62 Three-edge bearing test results

Fly ash type amp

percentage 3 D (psi) 7 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin) 28 D (psi) loading

rate(lbfmin)

Crack Load

40 F 900 1100 1250 900 1091

65 C 925 1100 800 850 1053

40C 850 1000 900 1200

25C 1000 1100 1053 975 909

Failure load

40 F 1600 1900 1250 1475 1091

65 C 1300 2000 800 1600 1053

40C 1700 2050 1900 1200

25C 1650 2050 1053 1650 909 Note 3 day test of 65 Class C is the in the batch IV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 73: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Strength (psi)

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

40

F

65

C

40

C

25

C

Crack Load Failure load

Three edge bearing test result at age 37 amp28 day

3 D (psi)

7 D(psi)

28 D(psi)

Figure 613 Three-edge bearing test result at 3 7 amp 28 days

Table 63 Observed Daily Temperature in 28 days

Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature Date Highest

temperatureLowest

temperature

10152002 58 31 10302002 41 29

10162002 42 34 10312002 31 24

10172002 61 34 1112002 40 20

10182002 70 43 1122002 38 22

10192002 51 33 1132002 48 29

10202002 63 31 1142002 46 19

10212002 52 31 1152002 47 31

10222002 37 29 1162002 62 25

10232002 33 28 1172002 72 27

10242002 32 28 1182002 62 41

10252002 44 32 1192002 64 35

10262002 52 39 11102002 53 31

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 74: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

10272002 43 37 11112002 47 24

10282002 45 37 11122002 62 23

10292002 43 41

642 Compressive Test for Cylinder Sample

The control cylinder samples were cured in the lab of Concrete Industries Inc under

steady humidity and temperature conditions One sample of each batch was tested The

compressive strength at 28 days is shown in Table 64 and Figure 614 The compressive

strength of 40 percent Class F replacement was 4569 psi which was close to the lab-

predicted compressive strength However the compressive strength of the 65 percent Class C

replacement was 6094 psi which is significantly higher than the lab-predicted value

Table 64 28-Day Compressive strength of control cylinder

Type and percentage 40 Class

F-II 65 Class

C-III 40 Class

C-V 25 Class C-VI

Compressive strength (psi) 4569 6094 8017 9388

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure
Page 75: Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation Applications . Report ... Research Assistant Professor, ...

0100020003000400050006000700080009000

10000

compressive strength (psi)

40 ClassF II

65 Clss C 40 ClassC

25 ClassC

Fly ash content amp percentage

28 Day Compressive Strength of Control Cylinder

Figure 614 28-day compressive strength of control cylinder (psi)

65 Conclusions

The results of both the three-edge bearing test for RCP and the compressive test for

the control cylinders are the same as those predicted in the lab test described in Chapter 5

The compressive strength of 40 percent replacement of Class F fly ash was about 4500 psi

while the compressive strength of 65 percent replacement of Class C fly ash was about 6100

psi Although the three-edge bearing test at 28 days was abnormal the results indicate that

the compressive strengths were equivalent to those of 25 percent Class C fly ash which is the

currently used manufacturing formula The above results show that the lab-developed mix

design for Class F fly ash can be used in Class I through Class IV RCPs

  • By
  • Samy E G Elias PhD PE (Project Coordinator)
    • Professor Department of Industrial amp Management Systems Engineering
      • University of Nebraska-Lincoln
      • College of Engineering and Technology
          • DECEMBER 2002
            • TABLE OF CONTENTS
            • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
              • 5641 Concrete density of Fly ash concrete
              • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
              • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                  • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                    • 566 Conclusions
                      • INTRODUCTION
                          • 22 Products from Coal Combustion
                          • 221 Dry Bottom Ash
                          • 222 Wet Bottom Boiler Slag
                          • 223 Fly Ash
                          • 2231 Fly Ash Characteristics
                          • 23 Methods of Using Fly Ash in Concrete
                          • 24 General View of Utilization of Fly Ash in Concrete Mixes
                            • References
                              • CHAPTER 3
                              • CHAPTER 4
                                  • 42 Utilization of Fly Ash - Possible applications
                                  • 421 Lightweight Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs)
                                    • 422 Concrete Pipe
                                      • 4223 ASTM and AASHTO Requirements for RCP
                                        • References
                                          • CHAPTER 5
                                              • 522 Optimization of Fly Ash in Structural Applications
                                              • 5221 L6AE-40F Mix
                                                • 523 Fly Ash Optimization in Self-Compacting Concrete Mix
                                                  • Table 56 Proposed Mixes
                                                  • Table 58 MBL5AE-40F Mix
                                                  • Table 511 Self Compacting Mixes
                                                    • Test
                                                    • ASTM
                                                    • Specimen
                                                    • Date
                                                    • 5521 Workability
                                                    • 5522 Modulus of Elasticity
                                                      • Table 513 Modulus of Elasticity Results
                                                        • 5523 Modulus of Flexure
                                                        • 553 Compressive Strength
                                                        • 554 Rapid Freeze ndash Thaw MKL7AE-40F Mix
                                                          • 561 Concrete Materials
                                                            • 5611 Cement
                                                              • 5612 Fly ash
                                                              • 5613 Aggregates
                                                                • Table 517 Aggregate Data
                                                                  • 5614 Superplasticizer
                                                                      • 562 Mixture Proportions
                                                                        • Table 5-18 Mixture Proportions (lbhalf cubic yard)
                                                                        • 563 Procedure
                                                                          • 5641 Concrete density of fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5642 Compressive strength of Class F Fly ash concrete
                                                                          • 5643 Compressive strength of Class C Fly ash concrete
                                                                              • 565 Material Cost Analysis
                                                                                • 566 Conclusions
                                                                                • References
                                                                                  • 61 Hypothesis (suggest putting this in the introduction section ndash at the end of the section I donrsquot think a hypothesis statement is appropriate here)
                                                                                    • 631 Field Test Mix Design
                                                                                    • 6321 RCP Manufacturing Procedure