Formwork R UIU Slides

SCC Formwork Pressure
David A. Lange University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
ILLINOIS
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
How do SCC strategies high paste content VMA (thickeners) smaller aggregate & controlled gradation HRWR, SP (CAE) mineral fillers & additives
change properties workability segregation formwork pressure shrinkage and creep strength
Sponsor:
and affect performance? early age cracking long term durability surface scaling freeze-thaw resistance abrasion resistance
2
ILLINOIS
UIUC database of SCC proportions shows departure from normal OPC
2.5
2.0
SCC Database Mixtures studied
1.5
SCC1 SCC2 SCC3
FA/CA RATIO
FA/CA Ratio
1.0
SCC4 OPC1
0.5
Typical non-SCC materials, according to ACI mixture proportioning method
0.0
55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
50
ILLINOIS
AGGREGATE CONTENT (%)
The Problem
ACI 347-01 Guide to Formwork for Concrete guidance
does not address SCC directly Pressure equations apply to normal concrete When in doubt, design for full hydrostatic pressure Result: expensive form work or shorter pour heights
Little field data available concerning actual pressure readings from cast in place operations.
ILLINOIS
Maximum Pressure Envelope
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
10
Fast Pour h
Slow Pour h
ILLINOIS
11
Mechanisms of form pressure decay
The main factors:
Internal friction
Aggregate contact and tendency to settle/consolidate Skeleton structure Higher agg content leads to rapid pressure decay
Thixotropy
Tendency of concrete to gel when at rest Shear strength increases even before normal set occurs Greater thixotropy leads to rapid pressure decay
ILLINOIS
12
Approach
ILLINOIS
13
Measurement System
Data acquisition box
Allows continuous reading and recording of data Can be used to monitor pressure during placement
Sensors
small size accurate at low pressures seen in concrete placement
ILLINOIS
14
Laboratory Set up
PVC Column testing
Split PVC for easy removal Steel bands to reinforce PVC pipe 3 tall pipes
Can be stacked to make taller column
Ports for sensors at different levels

15
ILLINOIS
Laboratory setup
ILLINOIS
16
Typical Pressure Decay in Short Column
2.5 feet deep
Pressure (psi) 0
0 60 120 180 240 Time (min) 300 360 420
ILLINOIS
17
Typical Pressure Decay in 6 column

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 60 120 180 240 Time (min) 300 360 420
ILLINOIS
Pressure (psi)
5.5 feet deep 4 feet deep 2.5 feet deep
18
How is SCC different from OPC?
After one hour, SCC pressure decreased 10% vs. 40% for regular concrete
0.8
28" slump flow
0.6
0.4
Measured pressure/Hydrostatic pressure
20" slump flow
0.2
31" slum p flow 2.5" slump

1 2 3
Time [Hr]
ILLINOIS
19
Effect of temperature
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 60 120 180 240 Time [hr] 300 360 420
ILLINOIS
Fraction of Hydrostatic Pressure
10 C 20 C 40 C
20
Effect of Set Altering Admixtures

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 60 120 180 240 Time (min) 300 360 420 Accelerator Retarded Standard
ILLINOIS
21
Need for mathematical model
Several models have been proposed in literature
Two general approaches
Rheological -- theoretical Semi-empirical -- practical
Little validation
ILLINOIS
22
Our approach is semi-empirical
Step 1: Characterize the characteristic pressure decay of the material Step 2: Impose variable pressure head on the material that is undergoing gelation, stiffening
ILLINOIS
23
Modeling Approach
Measure decay curve from a column
Calculate pressure as a function of height of concrete over time, C(t)
C(t)=Pressure (t)/Height
Generate filling rate curve Multiply filling rate curve by C(t) from column to generate predicted pressure over time
ILLINOIS
24
Step 1: Mathematical Fit for Pressure Decay Signature

Measured and Model Values
1.0
0.8
0.6
20 C 10 C 40 C Model 40 C Model 20 C Model 10 C
C0 C(t) (at 2 1)
Where: C0 = Initial value (Aprox. 0.90 1.00)
Hydrostatic Pressure
0.4
0.2
0.0 1.5 Time [min] 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
0.5
a, alpha = Define the initial and final slope of curve
Difficult to find one family of curves to model the different behavior
ILLINOIS
25
Predicting Pressure: An Approach

Where: Pv=Vertical pressure Ph=Horizontal pressure = Unit weight of the concrete R= Rate of pouring t = time C(t) is experimentally obtained from the lab column result
Pv h weight Ph CPv
Ph C(h) since h Rt
Ph (t ) C (t )Rt
The maximum pressure will be the equilibrium between the increase in head and the value of K(t)
ILLINOIS
26
30
1.0
25
0.8
20 0.6
C(t)
15 0.4 Head 1 Lat. Press. 1 Model 20 C
Pressure [psi]
10
0.2
0 2 4 Time [hr] 6 8
0.0
ILLINOIS
27
30
1.0
Note:
25
0.8
20 0.6
C(t)
15 0.4 Head 1 Lat. Press. 1 Model 20 C
Pressure [psi]
Maximum lateral pressure is reached long before end of of pour.
10
0.2
0 2 4 Time [hr] 6 8
0.0
ILLINOIS
28
Modeling Variation in Pour Rate

1.0
25
20
16 ft/hr
0.8
15
0.6
Note how the maximum pressure is very different for two different pouring rates using the same concrete.
Function C (t) 0.4 0.2 0.0
Pressure [psi]
10
8ft/hr
Head 16 ft/hr Horiz. Press. 16 ft/hr Head 8ft/hr Horiz. Press. 8ft/hr Head 4 ft/hr Horiz. Press. 4 ft/hr Funct. press. decrease
4 ft/hr
0 2 3 Time [hr] 4 5 6
ILLINOIS
29
Lab Test to Validate Model
Fill first 3 column Fill second 3 column
Creates a 6 column
Measure pressure in formwork as concrete hardens

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 Time [hr] 4 6 30 Head
ILLINOIS
Pressure [psi]
Observed Pressure
Second Pour Time 1 hr
MEASURED
4
Head
Pressure [psi]
2
First Pour Time 0
0 2 Time [hr]
31
ILLINOIS
C(t)
1.000
0.750
C(t)
0.500 C(t) for 20 C
0.250
0.000 2 4 Time [hr] 6 8

32
ILLINOIS
6
Second Pour Time 1 hr
1.0
0.8
MEASURED Head
0.6
Pressure [psi]
2 0.2
First Pour Time 0
0 1 2 3 Time [hr] 4 5 6
0.0
ILLINOIS
Value for C(t)

Model Prediction C(t) for 20 C
0.4
33
Field Data Collection
Sensors mounted in forms Pressure readings taken continuously during placement Fill rate data also recorded
ILLINOIS
34
Typical Results
25 20 15 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 time(min) 100 120 Filling Height(ft)
Use depth measurements from start and stop of individual trucks
To generate filling height curve for duration of placement of concrete

35
ILLINOIS
Typical Results
25 20 15 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 time(min) 100 120 Filling Height Pressure Pressure(psi) and Filling Height(ft)
Max pressure = 5.2 psi @ 21 minutes with 7.05 ft of concrete 20.14 ft/hr Total height = 15.88 ft, filled in 91 minutes 10.47 ft/hr
36
ILLINOIS

25
Filling Height
2
Pressure Fraction of Hydrostatic Pressure
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
20 15 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 time(min) 80 100
Pressure(psi) and Filling Height(ft)
0 120
Calculated pressure as a function of height of concrete 1 ft of concrete fully liquid 1 psi of pressure
37
ILLINOIS
Example: Application of modeling approach to I-74 project at Peoria
ILLINOIS
38
Example: Column from Field Measurement

1.2 1 0.8 C(t) 0.6 0.4 0.2
180 240 time (min) 300 360 420
2.5
column model
1.5
Pressure (psi)
0.5
60
120
0 0 60 120 180 240 time(min) 300 360 420
Measured from 2.5 column of concrete
Calculated C(t) from column data Generate curve to match measured data to create model curve
ILLINOIS
39
Example: Filling Rate Curve and Measured Pressure from Field

25 20 15 10 5 0 0 60 120 180 240 Time (min) 300 360 420
Height of Concrete Over Sensor Measured Pressure
ILLINOIS
Pressure (psi) or Height of Concrete (ft)
40
Example: Overlay C(t) Model Curve

25 1.2 20 15 10 5 0 0 60
Height of Concrete Over Sensor Measured Pressure C(T) model curve
1.0 C(t) 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 120 180 240 300 360 420 Time (min)
41
ILLINOIS
Pressure (psi) or Height of Concrete (ft)
0.8
Example: Model vs. Actual Pressure

25 1.2 20 15 10
C(T) Height of Concrete Over Sensor Measured Pressure Predicted Pressure
1.0
C(t)
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
5 0 0 60 120 180 240 300 Time (min) 360
0.0 420
ILLINOIS
42
Advantages of model
Provides a better approximation than assuming full liquid head Uses a simple, repeatable test for generating model curve Model seems to be conservative
ILLINOIS
43
Remaining Challenges
Accounting for real life variability Accounting for possible vibration after placement
ILLINOIS
44
Max. Pressure vs. Rate

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 rate (ft/hr) 15 20 max pressure (psi)
In all cases the goal was to limit max pressure to 7 psi Pouring rates as high as 15 ft/hr with out exceeding 7 psi Truck and pumper placement show similar results
45
ILLINOIS
Effect of Energy in Placement
Laboratory Work
Look at pressure when column is vibrated after placement
Field Work
Look at behavior of wall pours when placed using truck dump, pumper placement, and bucket dump
ILLINOIS
46
Lab Column with vibration every 10 min

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 60 120 180 240 Time (min) 300 360 420
5.5 feet deep 4 feet deep 2.5 feet deep 1 foot deep
ILLINOIS
Concrete placed in Column Vibrated every 10 minutes with pencil vibrator for 30 seconds SCC will maintain hydrostatic pressure if agitated Effect of agitation will be minimized with increasing cover height and time
47
Pressure (psi)
Summary
Formwork pressure of SCC is greater than that of normal concrete, and extra care needs to be taken Pressures can be suppressed by slowing pouring rate Field measurements are useful to monitor pressure Mathematical models, calibrated for each SCC mixture, can help predict pressure as function of pouring rates
ILLINOIS
48

Formwork R UIU Slides

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Formwork R UIU Slides

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SCC Formwork Pressure

David A. Lange University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

UIUC database of SCC proportions shows departure from normal OPC

SCC Database Mixtures studied

Typical non-SCC materials, according to ACI mixture proportioning method

AGGREGATE CONTENT (%)

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

ACI 347-01 Guide to Formwork for Concrete guidance

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Maximum Pressure Envelope

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Maximum Pressure Envelope

Maximum Pressure Envelope

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Maximum Pressure Envelope

Maximum Pressure Envelope

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Maximum Pressure Envelope

Maximum Pressure Envelope

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Maximum Pressure Envelope

Maximum Pressure Envelope

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Maximum Pressure Envelope

Maximum Pressure Envelope

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Maximum Pressure Envelope

Maximum Pressure Envelope

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Maximum Pressure Envelope

Mechanisms of form pressure decay

The main factors:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Data acquisition box

small size accurate at low pressures seen in concrete placement

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

PVC Column testing

Can be stacked to make taller column

Ports for sensors at different levels

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Typical Pressure Decay in Short Column

2.5 feet deep

0 60 120 180 240 Time (min) 300 360 420

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Typical Pressure Decay in 6 column

5.5 feet deep 4 feet deep 2.5 feet deep

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

How is SCC different from OPC?

28" slump flow

Measured pressure/Hydrostatic pressure

20" slump flow

31" slum p flow 2.5" slump

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Fraction of Hydrostatic Pressure

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Effect of Set Altering Admixtures

Fraction of Hydrostatic Pressure

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign