Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14

Particle Packing Models and Their Use

in the Design of Ultra High


Performance Concretes

C. Kennan Crane
Ph.D. Candidate

Overview
z
z
z
z
z
z
z

Definition and Motivation


History of Particle Packing in Concrete
Research
Packing Models
Current Usages in Concrete Design
Use of Particle Packing in UHPC Design
Experimental Comparisons
Conclusion

Theory Behind Particle Packing

(after Stovall, 1986)

Motivation for Particle Packing in


UHPC
z
z
z
z

Decrease permeability by decreasing pore


size (Roy, 1995)
Further reduce W/C
Densify pre-hydrated mixture (Fu, 2003)
Densify hydration product (Bonneau, 2000)

Does it work?
4

History of Particle Packing


z

First used in concrete research in 1892 by R.


Feret to optimize aggregate gradation
(Wang, 1997)
Initial objective was to achieve most dense
packing possible in order to reduce cement
usage (Mehta, 2006)

Governing Assumption of All Packing


Models

MATH = FUN
(Crane, 2007)

Traditional Model Types


Particle Packing

Discrete models:
-use idealized sets of
specifically sized particles
in creating packing models

Continuous models:
-use continuous gradations
of particle sizes
(Kumar, 2003)

Discrete
Models

Binary

Furnas
Powers

Aim and Goff

Ternary

Multimodal

Toufar, Klose,
and Born

de Larrard

(Kumar, 2003)

Continuous Models

Multimodal

Fuller Thomson

Andreassen

Rosin-Rammler

(Kumar, 2003)

Furnas Model (Kumar, 2003)


z

A course and a fine phase are each


characterized by

diameter, d
volume fraction, y
packing density,

Two cases can arise

Fine Grain Dominant


Course Grain Dominant

10

Furnas Model (cont.)


z
z

Model is only valid for fine particles much


smaller than course particles
As the size of the fines approaches the size
of the course, two interaction effects occur

Wall effect: increased voids near course particles


or other boundaries
Loosening effect: increased voids when fine
particles disrupt optimum course particle packing

11

Loosening effect

Wall effect

(de Larrard, 2002)

12

de Larrard Models
z

Linear Packing Density Model (LPDM) (Stovall,


1986)

Solid Suspension Model (SSM) (de Larrard, 1994)

basic multimodal model


updated version of LPDM
includes a virtual packing factor that accounts for the
difference between ideal and random packing of particles

Compressible Packing Model (CPM)

includes compression effort

13

Fuller Thomson packing model


(Kumar, 2003)
z

Originally proposed in 1907


n

d
CPFT = 100
D
z
z
z
z

CPFT = the cumulative (volume) percent finer


than
d = the particle size
D = the maximum particle size
n = .5

14

Fuller Thomson packing model


(Young, 1998)

15

3-D Computer Models


z
z
z
z

Model begins with random placement of particles


from largest to smallest.
This is followed by a compaction that consists of a
constriction of the container (Stroeven, 1999).
The spheres interact with one another to settle into a
more preferable configuration.
This type of model was later adapted to prevent
edge effects (Fu, 2003).

16

3-D Computer Models

17

Optimizing with Particle Packing


Models
z

Self Consolidating Concrete (Brouwers,


2005)

Optimize the aggregate for maximum flowability


Prevent segregation by optimizing paste

Ultra High Performance Concrete (de


Larrard, 1994)

Optimize the aggregate and paste for maximum


density
Close particle packing helps permeability and
strength

18

SCC Pour

19

(Kim, 2007)

UHPC Flow Table Test

(Garas, 2005)

20

10

Particle Packing Effect on Strength in


UHPC
z

De Larrard showed
increased strength (Kg)
in UHPC with
decreasing Maximum
Paste Thickness (MPT)
Very little data available
currently
(de Larrard, 1995)

21

Particle Packing Effect on Durability in


UHPC
z

Roy, et. al. studied


particle packing affect
on durability of HPC.
Showed reduction in
average poor size
decreases the
permeability of the
concrete, making it
more durable.
Not directly relatable
to UHPC

(Roy, 1995)

22

11

Experimental Verification (Gallias,


2000)
z
z
z
z

Binary mixtures were made with cement and varying


percentages of 11 fine admixtures.
Water was added to achieve a standard consistency.
Water demand was measured in each of the
mixtures.
According to the particle packing models, the water
demand should decrease as small particles are
added to fill the voids between the larger particles.

23

Binary Mixtures of Admixtures

50m quartz + 3m chalk


50m quartz + 5m calcite
5m calcite + 3m chalk

24

12

Binary Mixtures of Cement and


Admixtures

25

Possible Explanation of Discrepancies


z

Interaction of cement and admixture particles (Gallias,


2000)

Clumping that changes effective particle size prevents


optimum packing
Repulsion between particles that prevents optimum packing

Shear rate dependencies could also explain lack of full


diffusion (Hodne, 2006)

Shear thinning observed in concrete could be attributed to


these clumps requiring more energy to disperse

26

13

Conclusion
z

Particle Packing Models can begin to give an


idea of how concrete constituents will interact
on multiple scales.
More research is needed, particularly in
particle interaction in order to improve these
models.
More experimental data needs to be
obtained to verify model results.

27

Questions?

14