Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SCC BENEFITS
Viscosity
more
less
t1, t2 (sec.) 1, 2 1, 2 na 2, 9*
CONSTITUTIVE PROPERTIES fc
10000 66
9500 9000 8500 8000 7500 7000 6500 NCCB SCC1 SCC2A SCC2B SCC3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 6000 5500 5000
60 57 54 51 48 45 42 39 36 33 30
4500 140
650
4.25 600 4.00 3.75 3.50 3.25 3.00 NCCB SCC1 SCC2A SCC2B SCC3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 550
500
450
400 140
4.50
63
CONSTITUTIVE PROPERTIES Ec
4.6e+6 30 4.4e+6 4.2e+6
28
26
24 3.4e+6 22 SCC1 SCC2a SCC2b SCC3 NCCb 3.2e+6 3.0e+6 2.8e+6 2.6e+6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
20
18
Cross Section:
PRODUCTION PLAN
3 SCC mix designs that bound mix current design approaches 1 normally consolidated concrete (NCC) mix as a control mix SCC mix performance was to be evaluated
Strand Pull-In
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 NCCB SCC1 SCC2A SCC2B SCC3
MIX TYPE
3.0
0.12
Concrete Strain
3e-4
95% AMS
2e-4
1e-4 SCC1 0 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
30 25 20 15 10 5 0
NCCB
SCC1
SCC2A SCC2B
SCC3
MIX TYPE
30 25 20 15 10 5 0
NCC
SCC1
SCC2
SCC3
MIX TYPE
35
35
800 Average ACI Lt = 760.98 mm (29.96 in.) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0
30 25 20 15 10 5 0
NCC
SCC1
SCC2
SCC3
MIX TYPE
35
10
Failure Modes
Flexure Failure
Bond-Slip/Shear Failure
M test M n ACI
SCC1 SCC2A SCC2B SCC3 NCCB 1.06 1.11 1.01 1.09 1.04
Ld test Ld ACI
1.07 1.09 1.21 1.79 1.06
Ld expt . Ld ACI
1.03 1.04 1.17 1.42 0.97
11
M test M n ACI
SCC1 SCC2 SCC3 NCC 1.06 1.02 1.05 1.11
Ld test Ld ACI
1.10 1.04 0.93 1.06
Ld expt . Ld ACI
1.05 1.03 0.84 0.96
12
Plan View
Beam 1
Beam 5
Beam 6
APPROACH
Consider 3 SCC mix designs that bound current design approaches. Consider 1 normally consolidated concrete (NCC) mix as a control mix. The short-term flexure and shear performance of the SCC beams should be verified to be equal or better than that of the NCC beams through full-scale testing. The long-term performance of the SCC beams in comparison to the NCC beams to be continuously monitored for a year (or more?).
13
BEAM PRODUCTION
3 NCC and 3 SCC (one for each mix design) beams for demonstration bridge 2 NCC and 6 SCC (two of each mix design) for experimental evaluation 3 reserve NCC beams for bridge placement in case of unsatisfactory SCC performance Total: 17 Beams, 8 NCC and 9 SCC
Mock-up Production
14
36" 5"
4.5" 27"
BEAM PRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION
15
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
Experimental evaluation was conducted at MSUs Civil Infrastructure Laboratory Two test beams were cast for each concrete
One was to be evaluated for flexural response
Four total tests
FLEXURAL EVALUATION
Actuator
Test Beam
Reaction Floor 21 8 50 52
Support Block
16
Load (kip)
0 0 1 2 3
Displacement (in.)
Moment (kip-ft)
Design-Full* Design-Reduced* th *Nominal-AASHTO 17 Ed. NCC SCC 1 SCC 2 SCC 3 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004
200 0 0.0000
M
0.0001
Curvature (1/in.)
17
Maximum Total Moment (kip-ft) NCC SCC1 SCC2 SCC3 1,649 1,628 1,593 1,590
SHEAR EVALUATION
Reaction Frame
Actuator
Test Beam
Reaction Floor
NCC: Lv = 11 ft SCC: Lv = 9 ft
18
Load (kip)
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 P Lv P AASHTO LRFD 2 nd Ed. Design Nominal Capacity [L v=11 ft] AASHTO LRFD 2 nd Ed. Design Nominal Capacity [L v=9 ft] NCC SCC 1 SCC 2 th Note: AASHTO 17 Ed.:176 kip SCC 3 Design Nominal Capacity Shear Section 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Displacement (in.)
Moment (kip-ft)
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0.00000 0.00005 0.00010 0.00015 0.00020
.89 M M P Lv P Shear Section
AASHTO LRFD 2nd Ed. Design Nominal Capacity [Lv=11 ft] AASHTO LRFD 2nd Ed. Design Nominal Capacity [Lv=9 ft] NCC SCC 1 SCC 2 SCC 3
Curvature (1/in.)
19
120 100 80 60
P P Shear Section
nd
Ed.
40 20 0 0 250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
20
FIELD MONITORING
Instruments per Girder:
NCC NCC NCC - Instrumented SCC 1 - Instrumented SCC 2 - Instrumented SCC 3 - Instrumented System deployed: 12/20/05
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful for the financial and in-kind support provided by: PCI through a 2003-2004 D.P. Jenny Research Fellowship. MDOT and FHWA through a 2005 IBRC Project. The Premarc Corp. in-kind labor and materials Degussa Admixtures Inc. technical support and materials The CEE Department at Michigan State University
21
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors also gratefully acknowledge the collaborating effort and many fruitful discussions with: Mr. Armand Atienza (Formerly with Degussa) Mr. Doug Burnett (Formerly with Degussa) Mr. Tom Grumbine (Premarc) Mr. Don Logan (Stresscon) Mr. Horacio Lopez (Premarc) Dr. Charles Nmai (Degussa) Mr. Fernando Roldan (Premarc) Mr. Roger Till (MDOT) Mr. Chad Woodward (Degussa)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The experimental work for the presented projects was conducted at MSUs Civil Infrastructure Laboratory. The work could not have been possible with the aide and assistance of its staff and student researchers, including: Mr. David Bendert Mr. James Brenton Mr. Steven Franckowiak Mr. Mahmoodul Haq Mr. Siavosh Ravanbakhsh
22