Fly Ash in Reinforced Concrete Transportation … 99-06.pdfUtilization of Fly Ash in Reinforced...
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
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, ...](https://reader033.fdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051508/5aaa8e877f8b9a77188e523a/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
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
-