Page 1
CONCRETE MIXTURE PROPERTIES AFFECTING CONCRETE MIXTURE PROPERTIES AFFECTING
THE THE
AGGREGATE INTERLOCK MECHANISM OF AGGREGATE INTERLOCK MECHANISM OF
JOINTS AND CRACKS JOINTS AND CRACKS
SWANSON School of Engineering
JOINTS AND CRACKS JOINTS AND CRACKS
FOR RIGID PAVEMENT SYSTEMSFOR RIGID PAVEMENT SYSTEMS
LUIS CARLOS RAMIREZLUIS CARLOS RAMIREZ
Masters Thesis Defense November 19, 2010
Advisor : Dr. Julie Vandenbossche
Page 2
OUTLINEOUTLINE�INTRODUCTION
�MOTIVATION
�APPROACH
�RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
�METHODOLOGY
�EXECUTION
�RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
�CONCLUSIONS
�FUTURE WORK
Page 3
INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONPavementPavement PerformancePerformance
FaultingFaulting PunchoutsPunchouts
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
Corner BreaksCorner Breaks Transverse CrackingTransverse Cracking
Page 4
Load Transfer Efficiency (Load Transfer Efficiency (LTELTE) of Cracks and Joints) of Cracks and Joints
LL= = 11 UU= 0= 0
INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
LL= = 11 UU= 1= 1
LTE = LTE = UU
LLMasters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
x100%x100%
Page 5
Aggregate Interlock MechanismAggregate Interlock Mechanism
INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
LTEjoint=LTEbase+LTEAGG
PCC Slab
Base
LTEjoint=LTEbase+LTEAGG
20%-40%
AGGAGG= Joint Spring Stiffness
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
Page 6
Crack Surface TextureCrack Surface Texture
CA CA AngularityAngularity
CA CA HardnessHardness
CA Top CA Top SizeSize
CA CA GradationGradation
Matrix Matrix StrengthStrength
Factors Affecting the Aggregate Interlock MechanismFactors Affecting the Aggregate Interlock MechanismINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
Crack widthCrack width
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
Page 7
MOTIVATIONMOTIVATION
Damage accumulationDamage accumulation
MM--E Design E Design
σσ + + δ δ = f( = f( AGG/AGG/klkl))
AGG = f( LTE)AGG = f( LTE)
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
MM--E Design E Design
LTELTE = f( = f( Surface textureSurface texture))
Surf. textureSurf. texture = f( PCC Material properties)= f( PCC Material properties)
Page 8
APPROACHAPPROACH
Concrete Concrete Mixture Mixture
PropertiesProperties
Surface TextureSurface TextureVandenbosscheVandenbossche (1999(1999))
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
LTELTE AGGAGG//klklIoannidesIoannideset.al (1990)et.al (1990)
Page 9
RESEARCH OBJECTIVESRESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1.1. Establish a relationship between Establish a relationship between PCC properties PCC properties and and LTELTE..
2.2. Establish a relationship between Establish a relationship between PCC properties PCC properties and and AGGAGG..
3.3. Investigate the effect of Investigate the effect of PCC properties PCC properties on on fracture fracture
parameters.parameters.
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
parameters.parameters.
4.4. Determine influence of Determine influence of fracture parameters fracture parameters on the on the aggregate interlock.aggregate interlock.
Page 10
Data Data
Selection Selection
Previous Previous
Identify Identify
Data GapsData Gaps
Select Select
Data Points Data Points
to Includeto Include
Cast Cast
Specimens Specimens
& Testing& Testing
Calculate Calculate
Results Results
from Tests from Tests
METHODOLOGYMETHODOLOGY
Previous Previous
StudiesStudiesfrom Tests from Tests
DataData
Analyzed Analyzed
Combined Combined
DataData
Statistical Statistical
Data FittingData Fitting
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
Analysis of Analysis of
ResultsResults
Development Development
of Modelsof Models
Page 11
Full Factorial Design Matrix Full Factorial Design Matrix LA Category CA Top Size (in) w/c ratio Category Existent
Low resistance to abrasion
0.75
Low strength �
Medium strength �
High strength �
1.5
Low strength
Medium strength �
High strength �
2.5
Low strength
Medium strength
High strength
0.75
Low strength �
Medium strength
High strength
Low strength
EXECUTION
EXECUTION
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
Medium resistance to abrasion 1.5
Low strength
Medium strength �
High strength �
2.5
Low strength �
Medium strength
High strength �
High resistance to abrasion
0.75
Low strength �
Medium strength �
High strength
1.5
Low strength
Medium strength �
High strength �
2.5
Low strength
Medium strength
High strength
EXECUTION
EXECUTION
Page 12
Concrete Mixtures Properties Concrete Mixtures Properties
EXECUTIONEXECUTION
Concrete Mix ID
LS_0.75_17_0.4 LS_0.75_17_0.45 SL_1.25_34_0.4 SL_0.75_34_0.4 SL_0.75_34_0.45
Aggregate Type
Limestone Limestone Slag Slag Slag
Top Aggregate Size (in)
0.75 0.75 1.25 0.75 0.75
Coarse Aggregate Volumetric
Proportion (%)
44
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
Proportion (%)
Water-to-Cement Ratio
0.4 0.45 0.4 0.4 0.45
LA Value (%) 17 34
Absorption Capacity, (%)
0.5 4.78
Bulk Specific Gravity
2.71 2.35
CA Gradation AASHTO No. 57
Page 13
Day 1Day 1
Fracture Energy Fracture Energy
Test RILEM TPM Test RILEM TPM
1990 1990
(4 specimens per (4 specimens per
mixture)mixture)
Day 28Day 28
Fracture Energy Fracture Energy
Test RILEM TPM Test RILEM TPM
1990 1990
(4 specimens per (4 specimens per
mixture)mixture) Volumetric Volumetric
EXECUTIONEXECUTIONTesting Program
mixture)mixture) mixture)mixture)
Flexural Strength Flexural Strength
Test ASTM C78 Test ASTM C78
(3 specimens per (3 specimens per
mixture)mixture)
Volumetric Volumetric
Surface Texture Surface Texture
VST Test VST Test
(35 Fractured (35 Fractured
Faces)Faces)
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
Page 14
INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONVolumetric Surface Texture Test (VST)Volumetric Surface Texture Test (VST)
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
Vandenbossche (1999)
Page 15
RESULTS AND ANALYSISRESULTS AND ANALYSISVSTR Results0.2365 in0.2365 in33/in/in22 0.1289 in3/in20.1289 in3/in2
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
Page 16
RESULTS ANDRESULTS AND ANALYSISANALYSIS
VSTR=0.3689+0.5004*TS-24.5162*(1/LA)-0.0540*w/c+0.2049*TS2-
2.2665*TS*w/c+61.5434*(w/c/LA)
R2=0.91 Adjusted R2=0.86
VSTR ModelVSTR Model
VSTR =Volumetric Surface Texture Ratio (in3/in2)TS = Aggregate Top Size(in)LA = LA Abrasion (%)w/c =w/c ratio
Response Surface Method (RSM)Response Surface Method (RSM)
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
Terms p-value
Constant 0.000
TS 0.002
1/LA 0.000
w/c 0.001
TS2 0.000
TS*w/c 0.000
w/c/LA 0.005
Source p-value
Regression 0.0000
Linear 0.0010
Square 0.0010
Interaction 0.0000
w/c =w/c ratio
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000Pre
dic
ted V
ST
R (
in³/
in²)
Measured VSTR (in³/in²)
Page 17
0.20000
0.30000
0.40000
0.50000
0.60000
VS
TR
(in
3/i
n2
)
0.50000-0.60000
0.40000-0.50000
0.30000-0.40000
0.20000-0.30000
0.10000-0.20000
0.00000-0.10000
VSTR f(CA Top Size, CA LA)VSTR f(CA Top Size, CA LA) w/c ratio =0.45
RESULTS ANDRESULTS AND ANALYSISANALYSIS
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
0.751.07
1.391.71
2.022.34
0.00000
0.10000
16
21
26
31
37
42
LA (%)
CA top size(%)
Page 18
0.15000
0.20000
0.25000
0.30000
0.35000
VS
TR
(in
3/i
n2
)
0.30000-0.35000
0.25000-0.30000
0.20000-0.25000
0.15000-0.20000
VSTR f(CA LA, w/c ratio)VSTR f(CA LA, w/c ratio) CA Top size = 1 in
RESULTS ANDRESULTS AND ANALYSISANALYSIS
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
1621
2732
3843
0.00000
0.05000
0.10000
0.38
0.40
0.43
0.45
0.48
VS
TR
(in
3/i
n2
)
w/c ratio
0.15000-0.20000
0.10000-0.15000
0.05000-0.10000
0.00000-0.05000
LA (%)
Page 19
R2=0.95
Adjusted R2 =0.90
LTE ModelLTE Model
6.5log7.39 +
⋅=
cw
VSTLTE
Vandenbossche (1999)
efftVTSRVST ⋅=teff
RESULTS ANDRESULTS AND ANALYSISANALYSIS
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
−∗+∗−∗−∗+⋅=
22049.0/0540.0)/1(5162.245004.03689.0[(log{7.39
TScwLATSLTE
6.5}*54.2)]/_(5434.61/2665.2
+∗∗+∗∗
cw
tLAcwcwTS eff
LTE= Load Transfer Efficiency (%)VST=Volumetric Surface Texture (in3/in)VSTR =Volumetric Surface Texture Ratio (in3/in2)TS = Aggregate Top Size(in)LA = LA Abrasion (%)w/c =w/c ratioteff= Slab Effective Thickness (cm)cw= Crack Width (cm)
Page 20
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
LT
E (
%)
Crack width (mils)
0.75 in
1 in
1.5 in
2 in
LTELTE vs. Crack Widthvs. Crack Width
RESULTS ANDRESULTS AND ANALYSISANALYSIS
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
LT
E (
%)
Crack width (mils)
Predicted 1in
Mesured 1 in
Predicted 2 in
Measured 2 in
LTELTE vs. Crack Widthvs. Crack Width
Jensen & Hansen (2001)Slab thickness =10 inLimestone LA =34% , TS =1inGravel LA 22%, TS=2iin
Page 21
AGG ModelAGG Model
lkLTEAGG ⋅⋅
−
=
− 17786.1
012.0
01.01
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Load
Tra
nsf
er
Eff
icie
ncy,
%
...
Crovetti (1994)
Ioannides et. al (1990)
RESULTS ANDRESULTS AND ANALYSISANALYSIS
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
−∗+∗−∗−∗+⋅=
22049.0/0540.0)/1(5162.245004.03689.0[(log{7.39
TScwLATSLTE
6.5}*54.2)]/_(5434.61/2665.2
+∗∗+∗∗
cw
tLAcwcwTS eff
LTE= Load Transfer Efficiency (%)VST=Volumetric Surface Texture (in3/in)VSTR =Volumetric Surface Texture Ratio (in3/in2)TS = Aggregate Top Size(in)LA = LA Abrasion (%)w/c =w/c ratioteff= Slab Effective Thickness (cm)cw= Crack Width (cm)k= Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (psi/in)l = Radius of Relative Stiffness (in)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Nondimensional Stiffness, AGG/kl
25.0
2
3
)1(12
−⋅=
k
Ehl
ν
Page 22
4.00E+04
5.00E+04
6.00E+04
7.00E+04
AG
G (
psi
)
6.00E+04-7.00E+04
5.00E+04-6.00E+04
AGG f(LA, w/c ratio)AGG f(LA, w/c ratio) k =200 psil= 30 incw=0.08 inteff=11 inCA top size= 1 in
RESULTS ANDRESULTS AND ANALYSISANALYSIS
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
16 19 21 24 27 30 32 35 38 40 43 46
4.00E+01
1.00E+04
2.00E+04
3.00E+04
0.380.40
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.48
AG
G (
psi
)
w/c ratio
5.00E+04-6.00E+04
4.00E+04-5.00E+04
3.00E+04-4.00E+04
2.00E+04-3.00E+04
1.00E+04-2.00E+04
4.00E+01-1.00E+04
LA (%)
Page 23
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
�Development of VSTRmodelVSTR = f (w/c, TS, LA).
�Development of LTEmodelLTE = f (w/c, TS, LA, cw, t)
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
LTE = f (w/c, TS, LA, cw, t)
�Development of AGGmodelAGG= f (w/c, TS, LA, cw, t, k, l)
Page 24
FUTURE WORK FUTURE WORK
�To expand and additional validation of VSTR model.
�To incorporate AGG model into the MEPDG.
�To investigate the effect of additional PCC properties on thesurface texture.
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010
�To investigate the relationship between concrete fracture
parameters and the aggregate interlock mechanism.
Page 25
QUESTIONS?/COMMENTS?QUESTIONS?/COMMENTS?
Thank you!Thank you!
Masters Thesis Defense 11/19/2010