Compatibility of ultra high performance concrete as repair material : bond characterization with concrete under different loading scenarios

The rehabilitation of concrete structures, especially concrete bridge decks, is a major challenge for transportation agencies in the United States. Often, the most appropriate strategy to preserve or rehabilitate these structures is to provide some form of a protective coating or barrier. These surface treatments have typically been some form of polymer, asphalt, or low-permeability concrete, but the application of UHPC has shown promise for this application mainly due to its negligible permeability, but also as a result of its excellent mechanical properties, self-consolidating nature, rapid gain strength, and minimal creep and shrinkage characteristics. However, for widespread acceptance, durability and performance of the composite system must be fully understood, specifically the bond between UHPC and NSC often used in bridge decks. It is essential that the bond offers enough strength to resist the stress due to mechanical loading or thermal effects, while also maintaining an extended service-life performance. This report attempts to assess the bond strength between UHPC and NSC under different loading configurations. Different variables, such as roughness degree of the concrete substrates, age of bond, exposure to freeze-thaw cycles and wetting conditions of the concrete substrate, were included in this study. The combination of splitting tensile test with 0, 300, 600 and 900 freeze-thaw cycles was carried out to assess the bond performance under severe ambient conditions. The slant-shear test was utilized with different interface angles to provide a wide understanding of the bond performance under different combinations of compression and shear stresses. The pull-off test is the most accepted method to evaluate the bond strength in the field. This test which studies the direct tensile strength of the bond, the most severe loading condition, was used to provide data that can be correlated with the other tests that only can be used in the laboratory. The experimental program showed that the bond performance between UHPC and NSC is successful, as the strength regardless the different degree of roughness of the concrete substrate, the age of the composite specimens, the exposure to freeze-thaw cycles and the different loading configurations, is greater than that of concrete substrate and largely satisfies with ACI 546.3R-06.

Corrugated wood composite panels for structural decking

High flexural strength and stiffness can be achieved by forming a thin panel into a wave shape perpendicular to the bending direction. The use of corrugated shapes to gain flexural strength and stiffness is common in metal and reinforced plastic products. However, there is no commercial production of corrugated wood composite panels. This research focuses on the application of corrugated shapes to wood strand composite panels. Beam theory, classical plate theory and finite element models were used to analyze the bending behavior of corrugated panels. The most promising shallow corrugated panel configuration was identified based on structural performance and compatibility with construction practices. The corrugation profile selected has a wavelength equal to 8”, a channel depth equal to ¾”, a sidewall angle equal to 45 degrees and a panel thickness equal to 3/8”. 16”x16” panels were produced using random mats and 3-layer aligned mats with surface flakes parallel to the channels. Strong axis and weak axis bending tests were conducted. The test results indicate that flake orientation has little effect on the strong axis bending stiffness. The 3/8” thick random mat corrugated panels exhibit bending stiffness (400,000 lbs-in2/ft) and bending strength (3,000 in-lbs/ft) higher than 23/32” or 3/4” thick APA Rated Sturd-I-Floor with a 24” o.c. span rating. Shear and bearing test results show that the corrugated panel can withstand more than 50 psf of uniform load at 48” joist spacings. Molding trials on 16”x16” panels provided data for full size panel production. Full size 4’x8’ shallow corrugated panels were produced with only minor changes to the current oriented strandboard manufacturing process. Panel testing was done to simulate floor loading during construction, without a top underlayment layer, and during occupancy, with an underlayment over the panel to form a composite deck. Flexural tests were performed in single-span and two-span bending with line loads applied at mid-span. The average strong axis bending stiffness and bending strength of the full size corrugated panels (without the underlayment) were over 400,000 lbs-in2/ft and 3,000 in-lbs/ft, respectively. The composite deck system, which consisted of an OSB sheathing (15/32” thick) nailed-glued (using 3d ringshank nails and AFG-01 subfloor adhesive) to the corrugated subfloor achieved about 60% of the full composite stiffness resulting in about 3 times the bending stiffness of the corrugated subfloor (1,250,000 lbs-in2/ft). Based on the LRFD design criteria, the corrugated composite floor system can carry 40 psf of unfactored uniform loads, limited by the L/480 deflection limit state, at 48” joist spacings. Four 10-ft long composite T-beam specimens were built and tested for the composite action and the load sharing between a 24” wide corrugated deck system and the supporting I-joist. The average bending stiffness of the composite T-beam was 1.6 times higher than the bending stiffness of the I-joist. A 8-ft x 12-ft mock up floor was built to evaluate construction procedures. The assembly of the composite floor system is relatively simple. The corrugated composite floor system might be able to offset the cheaper labor costs of the single-layer Sturd-IFloor through the material savings. However, no conclusive result can be drawn, in terms of the construction costs, at this point without an in depth cost analysis of the two systems. The shallow corrugated composite floor system might be a potential alternative to the Sturd-I-Floor in the near future because of the excellent flexural stiffness provided.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LLDPE/CaCO3 MODIFIERS WITH AND WITHOUT TITANATE COUPLING AGENT ON ASPHALT BINDER AND MIXTURE

The complexity and challenge created by asphalt material motivates researchers and engineers to investigate the behavior of this material to develop a better understanding, and improve the performance of asphalt pavement. Over decades, a wide range of modification at macro, meso, micro and nano scales have been conducted to improve the performance of asphalt pavement. This study was initiated to utilize the newly developed asphalt modifier pellets. These pellets consisted of different combinations of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) and titanate coupling agent (CA) to improve the asphalt binder as well as pavement performance across a wide range of temperature and loading pace. These materials were used due to their unique characteristics and promising findings from various industries, especially as modifiers in pavement material. The challenge is to make sure the CaCO3 disperses very well in the mixture. The rheological properties of neat asphalt binder PG58-28 and modified asphalt binder (PG58-28/LLDPE, PG58-28/CaCO3, PG58-28/CaCO3/LLDPE, and PG58-28/CaCO3/LLDPE/CA), were determined using rotational viscometer (RV) test, dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) test and bending beam rheometer test. In the DSR test, the specimens were evaluated using frequency sweep and multiple shear creep recovery (MSCR). The asphalt mixtures (aggregate/PG58-28, aggregate/ PG58-28/LLDPE, aggregate/PG58-28/CaCO3, aggregate/PG58-28/LLDPE/CaCO3 and aggregate/PG58-28/LLDPE/CaCO3/CA) were evaluated using the four point beam fatigue test, the dynamic modulus (E*) test, and tensile strength test (to determines tensile strength ratio, TSR). The RV test results show that all modified asphalt binders have a higher viscosity compared to the neat asphalt binder (PG58-28). Based on the Jnr results (using MSCR test), all the modified asphalt binders have a better resistance to rutting compared to the neat asphalt binder. A higher modifier contents have resulted in a better recovery percentage of asphalt binder (higher resistance to rutting), except the specimens prepared using PECC’s modified asphalt binder (PG58-28/CaCO3/LLDPE). The BBR test results show that all the modified asphalt binders have shown comparable performance in term of resistance to low temperature cracking, except the specimen prepared using the LLDPE modifier. Overall, 5 wt% LLDPE modified asphalt binder was found to be the best asphalt binder in terms of resistance to rutting. Meanwhile, 3 wt% PECC-1CA’s modified asphalt binder can be considered as the best (in terms of resistance to thermal cracking) with the lowest mean critical cracking temperature. The appearance of CaCO3 was found useful merely in improving the resistance to fatigue cracking of asphalt mixture. However, application of LLDPE has undermined the fatigue life of asphalt mixtures. Adding LLDPE and coupling agent throughout this study does not sufficiently help in terms of elastic behavior which essential to enhance the resistance to fatigue cracking. In contrast, application of LLDPE has increased the indirect tensile strength values and TSR of asphalt mixtures, indicates a better resistance to moisture damage. The usage of the coupling agent does not change the behavior of the asphalt mixture, which could be due to imbalance effects resulted by combination of LLDPE and CaCO3 in asphalt binder. Further investigations without incorporating CaCO3 should be conducted further. To investigate the feasibility of using LLDPE and coupling agent as modifiers in asphalt pavements, more research should be conducted on different percentages of LLDPE (less than 3 wt%), and at the higher and w wider range of coupling agent content, from 3 wt% to 7 wt% based on the polymer mass.