Self-Consolidating Concrete for Cast-in-Place Bridge Components (2016) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 30-52
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 30... ...
30 Results, Interpretation, and Application This chapter presents test results and provides interpretation of the findings. Proposed changes to the current AASHTO LRFD design and construction specifications are presented in Attachment A
|
From page 31... ...
31 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 50 100 150 200 Pl as tic V isc o sit y (P a-s ) Dynamic Yield Stress (Pa)
|
From page 32... ...
32 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 JR in g ∆H (i n.) Slump Flow (in.)
|
From page 33... ...
33 and ¾ in. NMSA showed poor dynamic stability, making them inappropriate for long or deep components.
|
From page 34... ...
34 2.2 Early-Age Concrete Properties 2.2.1 Formwork Pressure Figure 2-10 shows the ratio of maximum exerted lateral pressure to hydrostatic pressure (Pmaximum/Phydrostatic) for SCC and CVC mixtures.
|
From page 35... ...
35 (a) Ratio of Pmaximum/Phydrostatic versus thixotropy.
|
From page 36... ...
36 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 M ax im u m In cr ea se o f T em pe ra tu re (˚ F) Elapsed Time (hr.)
|
From page 37... ...
37 209, 1997) for CVC with cement type I/II and moist curing conditions.
|
From page 38... ...
38 mixtures containing limestone aggregate was slightly higher than the MOE of SCC mixtures containing gravel aggregate, as reported by an earlier study (Mokhtarzadeh and French, 2000) ; K1 values of 1.0 and 0.95 are proposed for the limestone and gravel aggregates used in this study, respectively.
|
From page 39... ...
39 mixtures was approximately 20% less than that predicted for CVC (an earlier study, Parra, Valcuende, and Benlloch, 2007, reported 18% lower tensile strength)
|
From page 40... ...
40 trend shown indicates that the pull-out bond strength of SCC was consistently lower than that of CVC (similar results were reported by König et al., 2001 and 2003 and Almeida, Nardin, and Gresce, 2005)
|
From page 41... ...
41 flow SCC, high slump flow SCC, and CVC beams with the same reinforcement level. ANOVA data also indicated that the shear resistance of SCC and CVC mixtures was not significantly different at various reinforcement levels (similar to earlier results reported by Ebrahimi and Beygi, 2009)
|
From page 42... ...
42 2.3.2 Visco-Elastic Properties Drying (Free) Shrinkage Figure 2-29 shows the measured drying shrinkage of SCC mixtures versus that predicted by AASHTO LRFD Equation 5.4.2.3.3-1 for CVC.
|
From page 43... ...
43 (a) Shear cracking in a CVC beam.
|
From page 44... ...
44 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 C Fly Ash GGBFS SCM/Filler Type F Fly Ash F Fly Ash + LSP A ve ra ge a n d sta nd ar d de vi at io n of m ea su re d dr yi n g sh rin ka ge a t 5 6 da ys (µ st ra in ) SCC CVC Figure 2-30.
|
From page 45... ...
45 cracking potential of SCC mixtures was not significantly different from that of CVC mixtures with the same SCM (similar results were reported by See and Attiogbe, 2005)
|
From page 46... ...
(a) Air content versus spacing factor.
|
From page 47... ...
47 or CVC) ; similar findings have been reported by Tang and Zhu (2007)
|
From page 48... ...
48 placement rates, especially for mixtures with high thixotropy and high yield stress. The rheological properties of the SCC mixture used in column fabrication are provided in Appendix F
|
From page 49... ...
49 Formed SCC Surface Max. Void Diameter (Dmax)
|
From page 50... ...
50 Location First Column Second Column Bottom Middle Top Figure 2-41. Saw cuts at the bottom, middle, and top of the two pier columns.
|
From page 51... ...
51 Figure 2-42. Saw cut at the middle of bridge pier cap.
|
From page 52... ...
52 2.4.6 Air Void System Table 2-3 lists the air content measurements for the readymixed fresh SCC at the plant and at the job site after adding an additional dosage of HRWRA (the target air content was 6±1.5%)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.