CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1

Research Background Portland cement concrete is made with coarse aggregate, fine aggregate

(sand), portland cement, water and, in some cases, selected admixtures such as fly ash, air-entraining agents, water-reducing agents, retarders, etc. Each constituent influences the characteristics of the concrete and must be controlled as to composition and quantity if the end product is to be within acceptable limits of uniformity, workability, and strength. With the possible exception of water, coarse and fine aggregate materials are normally the least expensive materials in concrete and provide the greatest volume. Typically, in the concrete, the coarse aggregate and sand will occupy approximately 80 percent of the total volume of the finished mixture. Obviously, the most expensive component in the concrete mix is cement. A typical value of the cement for the same volume of concrete is 60 percent of the cost of all of the raw materials. The amount of cement primarily depends on the volume of the aggregates in the concrete mix. Specifications for the fine aggregate fraction of concrete have been developed almost exclusively on the basis of experience with natural sand for many years, since it was virtually the only type utilized. Clean, natural sands have rounded particles that provide good workability in concrete without the addition of 1

2 excessive quantities of either water or cement. When mineral fines are present in natural sand, the particles are frequently clay or silt particles that may be deleterious particles. These have an undesirable influence on water

requirements, workability, and strength characteristics of concrete mixtures. As a means of controlling the presence of such fines in fine aggregate, specifications have been developed which limit the amount of minus No. 200 mesh (75m) material. Hereinafter, minus No. 200 mesh (75m) material will be designated as micro fines. Current specifications, including ASTM C33 and those of most state Departments of Transportation, limit the percentage of micro fines allowed in fine aggregate used for portland cement concrete. Such specifications have been

utilized throughout the concrete industry for the past half-century but during that same period the nations supply of aggregate material has undergone gradual change [J. Fowler, 1997]. As the deposits of natural sands have slowly been depleted, it has become necessary and economical to produce manufactured fine aggregate (MFA). MFA is a fine aggregate processed from quarried stone that is crushed and classified to obtain a controlled gradation and a cubical to angular particle shape. The first commercial use of MFA was made in the early 1930s. Current usage of MFA is over 100 times the amount utilized in 1930s and represents approximately 20% of total concrete fine aggregate requirements. This percentage is expected to increase in the years ahead.

3 MFA differs from natural sands in gradation, particle shape and texture. Each of these characteristics has some influence on mixture design and influences cement requirements, water requirements, additive requirements, workability, and finishing characteristics of the concrete [McKeagney, 1984].

1.2

Problem Statement The requirement of the properties of fine aggregate will be different

according to types of structure, parts of using, the condition of mixture, and environment of casting. Therefore the typical requirement of the fine aggregate should be provided by specifications. Standard specifications for fine aggregate for concrete contained in ASTM C33 permit a maximum of 7 percent finer than the No. 200 sieve (75m), if the fines consist of dust-of-fracture essentially free of clay or shale. When the fines are not dust-of-fracture, the limit on the minus No. 200 sieve (75m) for concrete subject to abrasion is 5 percent. Such specifications severely limit the amount of fine particles that can be used, even though higher fines contents can improve the properties and the performance of the resulting concrete and reduce the cost of the mixture in which they are used. The production process for MFA normally generates 10 to 20 percent of micro fines that is more than permitted by specifications. As a consequence, excess fines must be separated from the desired sizes by screening or washing

4 operations or both. It is estimated that over four billion tons of by-products have been stockpiled annually at quarry sites around the US country. The amount of by-products will continue to grow due to production increases and environmental discharge restrictions [Wood, 1995]. Previous studies indicate an improvement in the properties of both fresh and hardened concrete when the MFA included a higher percentage of micro fines. This material consists of dust-of-fracture and essentially is free from deleterious material such as clay or shell. In other words, producers have spent both time and resources to remove a portion of the fines that, if left in the sand, would improve its quality. Additionally, it would reduce the amount of waste material that has to be handled and disposed of in the sand producing process [J. Fowler, 1997]. Use of increased amounts of fines in concrete should be carefully investigated with the objective of producing concrete with equal or better performance, while using aggregates more efficiently to decrease aggregate cost. MFA containing from ten to 20 percent of micro fines can have a beneficial effect on the properties of portland cement concrete [Hudson 1997, Nichols 1982, and Marek 1995]. These fines may be able to fill the void spaces between the coarser particles and produce concrete having similar workability without significantly increasing water requirement. This would result in an increase in density and greater compressive strength.

5 1.3 Research Objectives The main objectives of this research study to determine what practical limits can be established for proportioning concrete with higher levels of crushed fines are the following: 1) Determine the state-of-the-art regarding the use of higher crushed fines contents (ten to twenty percent of total fine aggregate) in the production of concrete for different applications in construction, 2) Determine the most relevant characteristics and composition of crushed fines that govern and/or control their use in the production of concrete for different applications in construction, 3) Develop a classification of crushed fines based on their suitability for use in producing concrete for different applications in construction, 4) Develop guidelines for mix proportioning of concrete incorporating higher fines contents, wherever compensation is needed from sand or rock due to higher surface area contributed by crusher fines, 5) Determine the effect of higher amounts for several types of crusher fines on concrete including fresh and hardened properties, durability and serviceability, 6) Develop modifications to existing construction specifications to

incorporate the use of higher levels of fines in concrete construction,

6 7) Conduct a cost comparison between concrete containing fines at current fines limits and concrete incorporating higher fines contents.

1.4

Scope of Research Program To provide guidance in the conduct of the research a Project Advisory

Committee (PAC) was established including members of industry, federal and state agencies, researchers and academia. The PAC was instrumental in ensuring that the research work is conducted effectively, efficiently and in the best interest of the sponsor. This research study consisted of four main stages. The first stage was the selection of aggregates that are used to this project. There were over 110

aggregate sources available for this project representing 22 states and seven rock types. The aggregates from sixteen sources were crushed and screened by Svedala Barmac in Birmingham, Alabama. All sixteen source aggregates were used in this research study. The aggregate property-testing program was the second stage. The basic aggregate characteristic tests were conducted to select the aggregates that are to be tested for the next stage. Five tests were performed for 112 sands and seven rock types. Based on the aggregate characterization tests, 50 sands were selected for the mortar testing program.

7 The third stage was the mortar testing program to evaluate the use of MFA in mortar. Two variables (the cement-sand ratio and the flow rate of mortar) were considered to investigate the characteristics for each type of aggregate in mortar. The fourth stage was the concrete testing program to investigate concrete performance and the properties of concrete. This concrete evaluation included mixes with fixed water-cement ratio and fixed slump. After the third and fourth stages were finished, a statistical analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of the characteristics of fine aggregate on the properties of mortar and concrete. Based on the analysis, the guidelines for using higher amounts of micro fines in portland cement concrete were developed. In addition, classification of manufactured fine aggregate based on suitability for use in portland cement concrete was developed and a cost analysis was performed.

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF STUDIES ON MANUFACTURED FINE AGGREGATES

2.1

Introduction A literature review of the characteristics and effects of manufactured fine

aggregates on concrete properties is presented in this chapter. Many studies have recently been conducted on manufactured fine aggregate in portland cement concrete. The topics of their research included basic characteristics of MFA, effect of MFA on fresh concrete properties, and effect of MFA on hardened concrete properties.

2.2

Definitions

2.2.1 Manufactured Fine Aggregates Manufactured fine aggregate (MFA) is a process-controlled, crushed aggregate produced from quarried stone by crushing or grinding and classification to obtain a controlled gradation product that completely passes the 3/8-in. (9.5mm) sieve [NCSA, 1976]. Due to variations in the rock type and crushing process the physical characteristics of the MFA, such as gradation, shape, dust-of-fracture content and texture, can change significantly and influence the performance of concrete. MFA is also referred to as stone sand, crusher sand, crushed fine aggregate, specification sand or manufactured sand [NCSA, 1976]. 8

9 2.2.2 Dust-of-Fracture The dust-of-fracture is the by-product of the deliberate fracturing of rock for aggregate production. As the shape of the MFA becomes more spherical, the corners of the aggregates are removed creating the dust, which typically passes the No. 200 sieve (75 m). The content of dust-offracture in MFA due to the crushing process can be expected to exceed 10% without having a detrimental effect on most concrete [Hudson, 1997]. Without deleterious materials such as clay, shale, coal, lignite or other impurities the dust should be considered clean and acceptable for use in concrete [NCSA, 1976].

2.3

Characteristics of Manufactured Fine Aggregates The characterization of fine aggregates for concrete is important due to the

new performance requirements from increasingly technical placement methods. Fine aggregate that prevents segregation is easy to finish and provides equal hardened properties that are desirable for high volume applications.

2.3.1 Particle Shape Particle shape, roundness, and sphericity are not usually determined for natural sands. The particle shape is influenced by the physical properties of the parent rock and by the method of production [McKeagney, 1984]. The

workability, flow, yield, air content, water requirement, bleeding and finishability

10 of concrete are all influenced by the particle shape of the fine aggregate in the mortar [NCSA, 1976]. Crushed aggregates contain more angular particles with rougher surface textures and flatter faces than natural sands that are more rounded as a result of weathering experienced over time. Researchers have become interested in quantifying particle shape as a way to explain variations in mixing water requirements and compressive strength for identically proportioned mixtures. In the 1960s, Wills [Wills, 1967] investigated the effects of both fine and coarse aggregate on water demand in concrete. The fine aggregate was found to have a more significant impact on water demand than the coarse aggregate. The relationship observed by Wills between 7-day compressive strength of 2-in. (50.8-mm) mortar cubes and the orifice flow rate of the fine aggregate is shown in Figure 2.1. The fine aggregate with the highest flow rate was said to possess the more flaky and elongated particle shape characteristics. The figure shows that, as the flow rate increases, the 7-day compressive strength of the mortar decreases. Figure 2.2 shows that the same relationship between the average 28-day compressive strength and the orifice flow rate. The variation in strength suggests that the orifice flow rate cannot be used to predict the compressive strength, but there is a general improvement in the compressive strength as the orifice flow rate decreases.

11
7500 7250 7000 6750 6500 6250 6000 5750 5500 5250 5000 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 O rifice Flow Rate (sec/cm 3 ) 0.2 42 M Pa 40 M Pa 38 M Pa 36 M Pa 0.21 50 M Pa 48 M Pa 46 M Pa 44 M Pa

Figure 2.1: Seven-day Compressive Strength vs. Orifice Flow Rate [Wills, 1967]
6 5 00 6 2 50 6 0 00 5 7 50 5 5 00 5 2 50 5 0 00 4 7 50 4 5 00 4 2 50 0 .1 5 0 .1 6 0 .1 7 0 .1 8 0 .1 9 O rifice F lo w R a te (se c/c m 3 ) 0 .2 42 M Pa 40 M Pa 38 M Pa 36 M Pa 34 M Pa 32 M Pa 30 M Pa 0 .2 1

44 M Pa

Figure 2.2: Twenty-eight-day Compressive Strength vs. Orifice Flow Rate [Wills, 1967]

12 Roundness measures the relative sharpness or angularity of the edges and corners of a particle [Neville, 1996]. Roundness can be defined numerically as the ratio of the average radius of curvature of the corners and edges of the particle to the radius of the maximum inscribed circle, but descriptive terms are more commonly used [Popovics, 1992]. A classification used in the U.S. is as follows: [Popovics, 1992]. Angular Subangular Subrounded Rounded Well rounded : little evidence of wear on the particle surface : evidence of some wear, but faces untouched : considerable wear, faces reduced in area : faces almost gone : no original faces left

Sphericity is the property that measures, depends on, or varies with the ratio of the surface area of the particle to its volume, the relative lengths of its principal axes or those of the circumscribing rectangular prism, the relative settling velocity, and the volume of the particle to that of the circumscribing sphere [Harr, 1977]. For instance, if two of the principal axes are much shorter than the third axis, the particle is called elongated; if two of these axes are much longer than the third one, the particle is called flat. Figure 2.3 provides two comparable charts for the visual assessment of particle shape.

13

(a)

Figure 2.3: Visual Assessment of Particle Shape [Powers, 1953; Krumbein, 1963] (a) Derived from Measurements of Sphericity and Roundness (b) Based upon Morphological Observations

14 Nichols [1982] reported that, as the angularity of the particles increased, the voids content increased and water-cement ratios were greater than comparable mixtures with less angular fine aggregate. As shown in Figure 2.4, the water demand increases for concrete with a given slump as the particle shape index increases. The water demand increases significantly when the shape index is greater than 53 for both cement contents. The increase in water demand above the 53-shape index is attributed to flaky particles in the aggregate which require more water to obtain the same slump.

0.8 4.2 sks./cu . yd. 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 N C S A P article S hap e In dex 5.0 sks./cu . yd.

Figure 2.4: Influence of Particle Shape Index on Water Demand [Nichols, 1982]

15 2.3.2 Particle Surface Texture The surface texture, also called surface roughness, of particles is the sum of its minute surface features [Dolar-Mantuani, 1983]. It is an inherent and specific property that depends on the texture, the structure, and the degree of weathering of the source rock. The surface texture influences the workability, the quantity of cement needed to produce satisfactory mortar mixtures, and the bond between the particles and the cement paste in hardened mortar. In most cases, some

improvement in bond is obtained as surface roughness increases [Barksdale, 1993]. After investigating the influence of surface texture of particles on the workability and cement content of a concrete mixture, Mather [1966] stated that as surface smoothness increases, the contact area with the cement paste decreases. Hence, a highly polished particle will have less bond area with the matrix than will a rough particle of the same volume. A smooth particle, however, will require a thinner layer of paste to lubricate its movement with respect to other aggregate particles. It will, therefore, permit tighter packing for equal workability and,

hence, will require lower paste content than a rough particle of similar roundness and sphericity. Rhoades and Mielenz [1946] explained the complex interrelation among the main textural features that influence the quality of the aggregate bond to the cement paste. Although rugosity increases the bond to the cement paste, even

16 more important aspects of surface texture are the porosity, absorption and permeability of the zone immediately underlying the surface. Penetration of the aggregate by cement slurry is conducive to good bond, but the porosity implied by very high penetrability may involve low tensile and shearing strength of the aggregate, with the loss in strength of the concrete. Other investigators have written that fine aggregates with very low absorption generally develop lower strength bonds and produce less durable mortars than those with slightly higher absorption. The interrelation between bond and absorption may account in part for the poor correlation between the durability of concrete and absorption, because the strength of bond increases as absorption increases, whereas the durability of concrete tends to decrease as absorption increases. Thus, the absorption characteristics of aggregates alone cannot be

considered a reliable indication of bonding characteristics, for capillaries of extremely small size may not permit penetration of the slurry into the aggregate particles but may permit considerable penetration of water. From the standpoint of durability and bond, penetrable voids of very small size are the least desirable [Dolar-Mantuani, 1983]. The strength and permanence of the bond between the cement and aggregate are functions not only of the surface texture, but also of the chemical characteristics of the aggregate. The integrity of bond will be lost if chemical reactions, such as that between high-alkali cement and reactive aggregates,

17 subsequently take place. On the other hand, some types of chemical surficial interactions between the aggregate and the cement paste may be beneficial in effecting a more intimate and stronger union. At present, however, there is no good test method that can be used to evaluate the texture of manufactured sand effectively.

2.3.3 Grading The significance of the aggregate grading is that it influences directly many important properties of fresh concrete, such as consistency and segregation, and to a certain extent the properties of hardened concrete as well [Baker, 1973]. Generally, within the permitted standard limits, the gradation of fine aggregate has a greater influence on the properties of concrete than that of coarse aggregate [Hewlett, 1998]. At one end of the range, unusually coarse sand tends to produce a harsh mix of low workability and with a greater liability to bleeding, segregation of water during mixing and/or placing of the concrete. At the other end, unusually fine sand can significantly increase the water demand of a concrete mix, because of its much greater particle surface area, but it can improve cohesiveness. In a study for the British Standards Institution, Pike [Pike, 1989] concluded that: A controlled content of mineral flour other than clay minerals may be tolerable and occasionally useful, but clay should be avoided; smectites are particularly harmful and their content shall be severely restricted. Pike suggested

18 that fines limits perhaps could sometimes be relaxed, if the methylene blue absorption test is available for harmful clay fines. Ramirez et al. [1990] have similarly proposed controls for calcareous sands based upon both fines content and methylene blue absorption. However, the strength performance effects for a

particular methylene blue value depend upon the type of clay, and thus the test is not definitive [Pike, 1992]. Marek [1995] investigated the effect of fine aggregate shape and grading on properties of concrete. He stated that a fine aggregate grading specified by the Portland Cement Association (PCA) is suitable for relatively spherical particles but is not suitable for grading containing highly non-spherical particles. The test results indicated the use of micro fines reduced the void content of the aggregate, thereby lubricating the aggregate system without increasing the water requirement of the mixture. He recommended a fines content in excess of 5 percent, and up to and even exceeding 10 percent, be considered when the fines are dust of fracture without clay or silt. ASTM C33 includes fine aggregate specifications for concrete and is the basis for many of the specifications in use today. Clelland [1980], writing in the New Zealand Standards Bulletin, pointed out that some sands that comply with fine aggregate specifications do not make good concrete due to poor physical characteristics. At the same time, sands that do not fit into the grading envelope have been used successfully in concrete.

19

100

North Carolina Specification Georgia Secification ASTM C33 Specification Coarse Gradations Fine Gradations

80

60

40

20

0 3/8" No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100 No. 200 US Standard Sieve Size

Figure 2.5: Comparison of Aggregate Grading Specifications Shown in Figure 2.5 is a comparison of the ASTM C33, Georgia DOT and North Carolina DOT specifications for fine aggregate grading. Figure 2.5 shows that for the finest allowable grading, the ASTM C33 allows less of each size fraction below the No. 8 (2.36-mm) sieve than the North Carolina and Georgia specifications, resulting in a coarser blend of aggregate particles. The Georgia specification allows the finest blend by requiring more of the smaller size fractions than the other specifications. The effect of changing the grading of MFA depends on the proportioning of the concrete. Nichols [1982] and Kalcheff [1977] reported that changing the

20 grading of a given MFA had little or no effect on the water demand. However, as the content of micro fines increased, the plastic concrete bled significantly less than concrete conforming to ASTM C33. The effect on the strength

properties varied with the cement content and not the changes in grading. It was suggested by Nichols that the increase in micro fines lowered the fineness modulus (FM) and the total quantity of fine aggregate needed to produce a workable mixture. The reduction in fine aggregate should offset the increase in water demand resulting from the presence of micro fines. In the end, the grading of the fine aggregate does not affect the compressive strength, flexural strength and freeze-thaw resistance as much as mixture proportioning.

2.3.4 Clay Content and Deleterious Components Particles finer than 75m may be present in three different forms: clay, silt, or dust. Clay is a natural mineral material having plastic properties and composed of very fine particles; the clay mineral fraction of a soil is usually considered to be the portion consisting of particles finer than 2 m. Clay minerals are essentially hydrous aluminum silicates or occasionally hydrous magnesium silicates [ACI 116, 1985]. Grading of four aggregate dusts is shown in Figure 2.6. The dust has a maximum size of 75 m. The graph shows dust grading from granite, quartzite, limestone, and traprock source. The vertical dashed line indicates the 2-m size

21 fraction. The maximum allowable clay content in fine aggregate is 3 percent of the fine aggregate by weight according to the ASTM C33 specification. If 20 percent of the minus 75-m-size fraction is smaller than 2 m and 15 percent of the fine aggregate is minus 75-m material, the clay content of the total fine aggregate will be 3 percent.
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Limestone Granite Traprock Quartzite

Sieve Size (mm)

Figure 2.6: Particle Size Distribution of Crushed Aggregate Fines [Wood, 1995] As shown in Figure 2.6, the dust fraction of the four MFA types typically contains less than 20 percent finer than 2 m. The rock type with the highest content of clay-size particles is quartzite, with approximately 40 percent of the dust finer than 2 m. Qualifying the clay content by size penalizes fine aggregate

22 since the particles may be the same size as clay, but not deleterious to concrete [Wood, 1995]. Ramirez [1990] investigated the problem of calcareous and clay fines in fine aggregate and their influence on concrete properties. The methylene blue test (P 18-592 AFNOR) was used to test 21 fine aggregates with varying contents of clay and micro fines. The methylene blue test is widely accepted in Europe as an effective method to quantify the clay content both in natural sand and manufactured sand. The procedure for this test is as follows [Maldonado, 1996]: a small amount of water containing the sample material and titrated methylene blue is removed via a glass rod and dropped onto filter paper. If a blue ring is observed on the paper, the sample is stirred and tested again without adding additional methylene blue solution. The final amount of methylene blue is recorded. In Ramirez study clay content (i) is the percent clay/sand where the clay is finer than 40-m and composed of 90/10 illyte/kaolinite. The clay contents used for the test program are shown in Table 2.1. The clay was added to the fine aggregate in order to determine the sensitivity of the methylene blue test procedure. Ramirez reported compressive strength when the MB value is put in terms of grams per 100-g sand and grams per 100-g fines. This relationship does not reflect the effect of increasing the content of micro fines in fine aggregate on the compressive strength as shown Figure 2.7 and 2.8.

23 Table 2.1: Mixture Proportioning used in Ramirez Tests [Ramirez, 1990] Total fines in sand, f (%) 25 20 10 5 3.5
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 Methylene Blue (g/100g sand) 2800 psi 2600 psi 2400 psi 2000 psi 0.140 i=0 i=1 i=2 i=4 3000 psi 3400 psi 3200 psi

Clay/sand, i(%) 0 * * * * * 1 * * * * *
3600 psi

2 * * * *

4 * * *

Figure 2.7: Compressive Strength vs. Methylene Blue Value (g/100-g sand) [Ramirez, 1990]

24

25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 Methylene blue (g/100g fines)

3600 psi

i i i i

= = = =

0 1 2 4

3400 psi 3200 psi 3000 psi 2800 psi 2600 psi 2400 psi 2200 psi 1.2

Figure 2.8: Compressive Strength vs. Methylene Blue Value (g/100-g fines) [Ramirez, 1990] 2.4 Effect of Manufactured Fine Aggregates on Fresh Concrete Properties

2.4.1 Mixing Water Requirement Many researchers have noted increased water demand as the dust of fracture percentage is increased in the fine aggregate in concrete. The observation seems to go against the earlier claim that the minus 75-m-size fraction helps to lubricate the plastic concrete. Celik and Marar [1996] noted that without adjusting the proportions of coarse and fine aggregate, the specific surface of the aggregate particles increased as the dust of fracture percentage increased. They attributed the increase in water demand to the increased specific surface.

25 Ahmed and El-Kourd [1989] tested concrete with constant slump and concrete with a constant w/c. The concrete made to have a constant slump of 4.0 0.5-in. (100 15-mm) required more water as the content of dust was increased. Shown in Figure 2.9, the required w/c to maintain a constant slump was greater for the natural sand than for MFA with the same dust content. Concrete batched with a constant w/c had decreasing slump as the dust content increased.
0.8 Natural Sand Limestone MFA 0.75

0.7

0.65

0.6 0 5 10 Dust Content (Percent of FA) 15 20

Figure 2.9: Influence of Aggregate Type and Dust Content on W/C [Ahmed, 1989] 2.4.2 Air Content Celik and Marar [1996] batched concrete specimens with constant w/c, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate and cement contents. The only variation was the percentage of the fine aggregate replaced with dust of fracture. Air content

26 measurements were taken on the various mixtures with the results shown below in Figure 2.10.
3 2 .8 2 .6 2 .4 2 .2 2 1 .8 1 .6 1 .4 1 .2 0 5 10 15 D u st C o n te n t (% ) 20 25 30

Figure 2.10: Effect of Increasing Dust of Fracture Content on Air Content in Concrete [Celik, Marar 1996]

2.5

Effect of Manufactured Fine Aggregates on Hardened Concrete Properties

2.5.1 Compressive Strength The compressive strength of concrete containing higher contents of dust of fracture has been shown comparable to concrete conforming to ASTM C33 in many studies. Dukatz and Marek [1985] reported that concrete made with MFA containing up to 7 percent dust of fracture obtains compressive strength equal to or better than concrete made with natural sand with the same w/c. Malhotra and Carette [1985] reported that for concrete with a w/c of 0.70 and increasing

27 contents of micro fines, the compressive strength was as good as or better than the control concrete at all ages. Figure 2.11 shows the relationship between the

amount of sand replaced with limestone dust, age of the concrete and the compressive strength of the concrete. For concrete with a 0.70 w/c, the

compressive strength increased with the amount of dust and the age for all specimens. Concrete with a 0.53 w/c showed constant strength for all levels of dust replacement and increasing strength with age. The concrete made with a 0.40 w/c had a decrease in strength when the dust content in the MFA was 10 percent as compared to the control and the same strength for concrete made with MFA containing 20 percent dust.
7000 45 MPa 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 0 5 10 Dust Content 7 day, w/c = 0.70 7 day, w/c = 0.53 7 day, w/c = 0.40 28 day, w/c = 0.70 28 day, w/c = 0.53 28 day, w/c = 0.40 90 day, w/c = 0.70 90 day, w/c = 0.53 90 day, w/c = 0.40 15 20 40 MPa 35 MPa 30 MPa 25 MPa 20 MPa 15 MPa

Figure 2.11: Relationship between Age, W/C, Dust Content and Strength [Celik, 1996]

28 Shown in Figure 2.12, Ahmed and El-Kourd [1989] reported that, for concrete of constant slump, the compressive strength decreased linearly with increasing percentages of dust of fracture in the fine aggregate. In contrast,

concrete made with a constant w/c of 0.70 showed increasing compressive strength as the dust of fracture content in the fine aggregate was increased. The difference is a result of increased water demand in the mixtures requiring a constant slump.

5750 5500 5250 5000 4750 4500 4250 0 5 10 15 20 Dust of Fracture Content (% Fine Aggregate) 35 MPa Constant Slump Constant w/c 39 MPa

37 MPa

33 MPa

31 MPa

Figure 2.12: Comparison of the 28-day Compressive Strength of Concrete made with MFA Proportioned to a Constant Slump and a Constant W/C [Ahmed, El-Kourd 1989]

29 Ahmed [1989] reports that the concrete made with MFA was stronger at all ages than concrete made with blended natural sand. Figure 2.13 shows the 28-day compressive strength of concrete made with limestone MFA and natural sand as reported by Ahmed. Both concrete mixtures had a constant w/c. The strength increased for every level of replacement except the 3 percent mixture as compared to the mixture with no dust included.
5100 5000 4900 4800 4700 4600 4500 4400 4300 4200 0 5 10 Percent Dust Replacement 15 29 MPa 20 32 MPa 31 MPa 30 MPa Natural Sand Crushed Limestone

35 MPa 34 MPa 33 MPa

Figure 2.13: Influence of Fine Aggregate Type on 28-day Compressive Strength [Ahmed, 1989] The natural sand concrete showed a decrease in compressive strength for the 3, 5 and 15 percent replacement levels as compared to 0 percent replacement

30 mixture. The concrete containing 7 and 10 percent of natural sand dust showed an increase in compressive strength at 28 days. The decrease in compressive strength in the natural sand concrete is anticipated by current specifications, which include the limitations on the micro fines. The increase in compressive strength by the MFA concrete is not

anticipated by the current specifications, which would prevent the benefits of the material from being realized. Bonavetti and Irassar [1976] investigated the effect of stone dust content in mortar. The tests were conducted with limestone, quartz and granite dust of fracture combined with natural sand. The crushed fine aggregate was not used due to difference in the grain size distribution, shape and texture of the particles. Mortar cubes were batched to have a constant flow with a 1:3 cement-to-sand ratio combined with 5, 10, 15 and 20 percent of the sand replaced with dust of fracture. The cubes tested containing quartz dust had increased compressive strength at all percentages of sand replacement and ages. The cubes containing granite had mixed results. The cubes with 5 percent replacement had greater compressive strength at all ages as compared to the control mortar cubes. The cubes containing 10 percent dust replacement had below average strength at seven days, but above average strength at 28, 90 and 180 days. The specimens containing 15 and 20 percent dust replacement were weaker in compression at all ages than the control mortar specimens.

31 The limestone specimens had rapid early strength gain, which over time fell into line with the strength of the control group. The mortar specimens with 5, 10 and 15 percent replacement were stronger than the control mortar while the mortar with 20 percent replacement had a compressive strength equal to 95 percent of the control at 180 days.

2.5.2 Flexural Strength Celik and Marar [1996] reported that as the dust of fracture content was increased to 10 percent the 28-day flexural strength increased 10 percent as compared to the control specimens with no dust of fracture. As the dust of fracture content was increased to 30 percent, the 28-day flexural strength decreased 10 percent as compared to the control concrete mixture. Malhotra and Carette [1985] tested the flexural strength of concrete containing varying percentages of dust with water-cement ratios of 0.70, 0.53 and 0.40 at 14 and 70 5 days. The flexural strength for each w/c was as good as or better than the flexural strength of the control mixture for the corresponding w/c as shown in Figure 2.14. The increase in dust content did not negatively effect the flexural strength. The most significant influence on the flexural strength is the w/c.

32

1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 0

w/c=0.70

w/c=0.53

w/c=0.40 7.0 MPa

4.5 MPa

4.0 MPa

3.5 MPa

10 Percent Dust Content

15

20

Figure 2.14: Percent Dust Content vs. Flexural Strength [Malhotra, 1985] Bonavetti and Irassar (1994) tested the flexural strength of mortars containing up to 20 percent dust of fracture. For all levels of replacement, the concrete showed increased flexural strength at all ages as compared to the control concrete.

2.5.3 Shrinkage The shrinkage of concrete typically increased with the percentage of the minus 75-m-size fraction. Ahmed and El-Kourd [1989] monitored the drying shrinkage of seven concrete mixtures with different percentages of dust of fracture.

33 Concrete prisms measuring 2-in.2-in.11.25-in. (50-mm50-mm285-mm) were cast for the test program. The specimens were water cured for 3 days and then air cured at 73.4 3.6F (23 2C) and 45 5 percent relative humidity. Measurements were taken at 7, 28, 56, 100 and 330 days as shown Figure 2.15.
0.07 0.0675 0.065 0.0625 0.06 0.0575 0.055 0.0525 0.05 0 3 5 7 10 15 20 Percent of MFA Replaced by Dust

Figure 2.15: Effect of Increasing Dust of Fracture Content on 330 day Drying Shrinkage [Ahmed, El-Kourd 1989]

Malhotra and Carette [1985] used 3-in.4-in.16-in. (76-mm102mm406-mm) prisms for their shrinkage monitoring program. The specimens were tested according to ASTM C157 procedures. The specimens were cured in water at 73 3F (23 1.7C) for 7 days and then exposed to air-drying at 73

34 3F (23 1.7C) and 50 percent relative humidity. The drying shrinkage strains were monitored for a period of 217 days. As shown in Figure 2.16, the concrete shrinkage increased with increasing dust of fracture content. Shrinkage effects were more pronounced for lean

concrete containing more than 10 percent dust-of-fracture. Factors attributed to influencing the test results are accelerated hydration, carboaluminate formation and large superplasticizer dosages in the specimens incorporating 15 and 20 percent limestone dust of fracture.
700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 0 5 10 15 20 Percent Replacement of Sand by Limestone Dust w/c=0.70 w/c=0.53 w/c=0.40

Figure 2.16: Influence of Dust of Fracture Content and W/C [Ahmed, 1989]

35 2.5.4 Permeability Permeability of concrete can be reduced by using MFA with high percentages of dust of fracture. Inclusion of MFA with good particle shape and gradation allows for efficient aggregate packing. The particle arrangement

decreases permeability by blocking capillary passages formed during the hydration of the cement [Hudson, 1997]. Bonavetti and Irassar [1994] tested mortars with varying w/c and dust contents. As the w/c increased, the permeability increased, as would be expected. For every w/c, as the dust content increased the permeability of the mortar decreased as compared to the control mixture

2.5.5 Impact Resistance The impact resistance of concrete is typically thought to be directly related to the compressive strength of the concrete. Celik and Marar [1996] reported that the impact resistance of the concrete was greatest with the addition of 5 percent dust of fracture. Impact resistance was improved with 10 percent dust content but decreased below the impact resistance of the control concrete for the mixtures tested containing more than 10 percent dust of fracture. Impact resistance did not increase with increasing compressive strength as would normally be expected. The greatest compressive strength was observed with the concrete containing 10

36 percent dust of fracture while the greatest impact resistance was observed at 5 percent dust replacement.

2.5.6 Absorption According to Celik and Marar [1996] the absorption percentage of concrete containing up to 15 percent dust of fracture decreased. The decrease in absorption was attributed to the dust acting as filler in the concrete. However, concrete containing more than 15 percent dust of fracture caused an increase in absorption, which they related to the observed decrease in compressive strength. Since the w/c was constant for the test batches, the increase in absorption may have been related to the pore structure of the concrete. Celik stated that the concrete made with fine aggregate containing more than 15 percent dust did not have enough paste to cover all of the aggregate particles in the mixture.

2.5.7 Creep Malhotra and Carette [1985] tested the creep of concrete with a 0.53 w/c and dust of fracture contents ranging from zero to 20 percent of the weight of the fine aggregate. The creep of the concrete containing 5 percent dust was less than the control while the concrete containing 10, 15 and 20 percent dust was 22 to 26 percent greater than the control after 200 days of loading. The increase in creep

37 was attributed to the formation of carboaluminates and the increased rate of hydration.

2.5.8 Resistance to Freezing and Thawing Kalcheff [1977] tested concrete specimens according to ASTM C666 Procedure B. There were no conclusions drawn as to the effect of fine aggregate on the freezing and thawing resistance of the concrete. A constant air content of 5.5 0.5 percent was used in all of the concrete mixtures. The constant air content was achieved using a vinsol resin solution with the content varying due to the quantity of cement, the quantity of fine aggregate and the gradation of the fine aggregate including the dust of fracture content.

CHAPTER THREE: AGGREGATE SELECTION

3.1

Introduction Some properties of the types of rocks in the continental United States and

the method of aggregate selection are presented in this chapter. The aggregates chosen for testing in this study represent a broad cross section of the crushed aggregates produced in the U.S. Limestone, dolomite, granite, and traprock are crushed aggregates most commonly used in concrete and account for 94% of the crushed stone produced in the U.S. in 1996 [Tepordei, 1996]. Sandstone, quartzite and crushed river gravel sources were also identified due to their potential for use in producing MFA. Each potential source was evaluated by its rock type and geographic location. There were over 110 aggregate sources available to ICAR for this project representing 22 states and seven rock types.

3.2

Properties of the Types of Rocks Waddell [1993] reported some physical and engineering properties of the

types of rocks according to the class of rocks. Table 3.1 and 3.2 show the physical and engineering properties of the types of rocks used in this study. As shown in the tables, the absorption (%) of sedimentary rocks is relatively higher than that of other rocks.

38

39 Table 3.1: Average Values for Physical Properties of the Types of Rocks Investigated in This Study [Waddell, 1993] Type of rock Igneous Granite Basalt Diabase Sedimentary Limestone Dolomite Sandstone Metamorphic Quartzite

Bulk specific gravity 2.65 2.86 2.96 2.66 2.70 2.54 2.69

Absorption, % 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.9 1.1 1.8 0.3

Loss by abrasion, % Los Angeles 38 14 18 26 25 38 28

After immersion in water at atmospheric temperature and pressure. ASTM C535.

Table 3.2: Summary of Engineering Properties of Rocks [Waddell, 1993] Type of rock Igneous Granite Basalt, Diabase Sedimentary Limestone, Dolomite Sandstone Metamorphic Quartzite
Mechanical Durastrength bility Presence of Crushed Chemical Surface undesirable shape stability characteristics impurities

Good Good Good Good Fair Good

Good Good Fair Fair Fair Good

Good Good Good Good Good Good

Good Good Good Good Good Good

Possible Seldom Possible Possible Seldom Seldom

Good Fair Good Good Good Fair

40 3.3 Manufactured Fine Aggregate Selection The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reported the amount of MFA, or stone sand, sold or used by producers in the U.S. [Tepordei, 1996]. Limestone and granite are the dominant aggregates used for MFA production accounting for 86% of the reported totals. Traprock, dolomite, sandstone and quartzite make up the other 14% with less than 1% of aggregates classified as miscellaneous by the USGS also being used as MFA for concrete.

3.3.1 Limestone Crushed limestone is produced in every state in the continental U.S. except North Dakota, Louisiana and Delaware [Tepordei, 1996]. The USGS reports 8% of crushed limestone is used in concrete and 2% of crushed limestone is used as MFA. Figure 3.1 shows by dots the location of the limestone sources used for this study with the shaded states indicating the top five producing states of crushed limestone in the U.S. The top five producing states account for 39% of crushed limestone production in the U.S. Of the other states represented, Alabama, Tennessee and Pennsylvania are among the top ten producers of crushed limestone. In the

reporting of crushed limestone production some states did not differentiate between limestone and dolomite production that might affect the reported production levels in each state.

41

Figure 3.1: Crushed Limestone Sources for ICAR Research

Table 3.3: Location of Limestone Sources and Percentage of Total US Output State Represented in ICAR 102 Study Texas Florida Pennsylvania Tennessee Alabama California Virginia Nevada Total Number of Sources evaluated in ICAR 102 Study 5 1 1 3 4 2 1 1 18 Percentage of Total U.S. Crushed Limestone Production 9 8 6 6 4 3 2 0.2 39

42 3.3.2 Dolomite Dolomite production was reported in 25 states [Tepordei, 1996]. The

reported production volume of dolomite does not reflect the true amount of dolomite produced due to some states not differentiating between limestone and dolomite. According to USGS data, 10% of crushed dolomite was used in

concrete and 1% was used as MFA. Figure 3.2 shows the location of the dolomite sources used for this study. The top five producing states are shaded representing 56% of U.S. production. The production levels for Tennessee and Alabama were withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data. The production in California and Oklahoma accounts for 4% of U.S. production.

43 Table 3.4: Location of Dolomite Sources and Percentage of Total US Output State Represented in ICAR 102 Study Ohio California Oklahoma Tennessee Alabama Illinois Iowa Total 3.3.3 Granite Crushed granite was produced in 37 states in 1996 [Tepordei, 1996]. The USGS reports that 7% of crushed granite produced was used in concrete and 2% of crushed granite was used as MFA. Figure 3.3 indicates the location of twelve sources from seven states identified for classification and testing in this study. The top five producing states, which are shaded, account for 73% of US production. The top granite producing states are represented by ten of twelve granite sources. Table 3.5 indicates the number of sources in each state and the percentage of US production that each state represents. The granite production volume in Minnesota was withheld for proprietary reasons, but is less than 5% of US production. Number of Sources evaluated in ICAR 102 Study 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 9 Percentage of Total U.S. Crushed Dolomite Production 18 0.4 3 Withheld Withheld 10 N/A >32

44

Figure 3.3: Crushed Granite Sources for ICAR Research

Table 3.5: Location of Granite Sources and Percentage of Total US Output State Represented in ICAR 102 Study Georgia North Carolina South Carolina California Minnesota Virginia Connecticut Wyoming Total Number of Sources evaluated in ICAR 102 Study 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 14 Percentage of Total U.S. Crushed Granite Production 26 21 9 3 Withheld 12 N/A N/A >71

45 3.3.4 Traprock The USGS reported crushed traprock production in 27 states [Tepordei, 1996]. Seven percent of the traprock produced was used in concrete with 1% of the crushed traprock used as MFA. Figure 3.4 shows by dots the location of the sources of crushed traprock used in this study. The top five producing states, shaded in the map below, crushed 64% of the traprock processed in the US [Tepordei, 1996]. The volume of traprock

crushed in New York was withheld for proprietary reasons, but accounted for less than 8% of the total US production volume.

Figure 3.4: Crushed Traprock Sources for ICAR Research

46

Table 3.6: Location of Traprock Sources and Percentage of Total US Output State Represented in ICAR 102 Study Washington California New York Virginia Total Number of Sources evaluated in ICAR 102 Study 3 3 2 2 12 Percentage of Total U.S. Crushed Granite Production 26 21 9 12 >71

3.3.5 Sandstone, Quartzite and Crushed River Gravel The output of sandstone and quartzite was combined in the USGS Crushed Stone report in 1996 while production data for crushed river gravel are not specified. production. The total quartzite production in the US is 35% of the sandstone Three percent of crushed sandstone is used in concrete and two

percent is used as MFA, while 6% of crushed quartzite is used in concrete and 1% is used as MFA. Figure 3.5 indicates by dots the location of the sandstone, quartzite and crushed river gravel sources used in the ICAR research. The top five producing states of sandstone and quartzite, shaded in Figure 3.5, account for 53% of US output. The quartzite sources are located in South Dakota and Montana, the sandstone sources are in Pennsylvania and Arkansas and

47 the crushed river gravel source is in Michigan. There are no specific data on the production of crushed river gravel in the USGS Survey.

Figure 3.5: Crushed Sandstone, Quartzite and Gravel Sources for ICAR Research

3.4

Summary After aggregate producers were contacted, the sources were delivered to be

crushed and screened in a Svedala-Barmac crusher in Birmingham, Alabama. Table 3.7 indicates the selected aggregates and location for this study. All sixteen source aggregates were used in this research study. Since the production of limestone and granite is approximately 86% of all type of MFA in U.S., three limestone aggregates and five granite aggregates were selected for this

48 study. The number of sands indicates the number of different screening sands that were crushed by different crushing speed in the Svedala-Barmac crusher.

Table 3.7: Selected Aggregates and Location for ICAR Research Quarry ID No. 51 54 55 56 57 62 63 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Rock Type Dolomite Limestone Sandstone Dolomite Limestone Granite Quartzite Diabase Granite Granite Granite Basalt Granite Limestone Dolomite Sandstone Location (State) Oklahoma Pennsylvania Tennessee Virginia Minnesota South Dakota Virginia Wyoming Connecticut Virginia Missouri Iowa Arkansas No. of sands 5 8 7 5 3 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 5

After being crushed and screened by the Svedala-Barmac crusher in Birmingham, Alabama, approximately 800 boxes and 120 drums of crushed MFA were shipped to Austin, Texas for the testing.

49

Figure 3.6: Rock Types and Corresponding Locations Used in This Study

Granite (GR) from Virginia (VA), Minnesota (MN), Connecticut (CT), Wyoming (WY) Basalt (BA) from Connecticut (CT) Diabase (DI) from Virginia (VA)

Sandstone (SS) from Pennsylvania (PA), Arkansas (AR) Limestone (LS) from Pennsylvania (PA), Virginia (VA), Missouri (MO)

Dolomite (DO) from Oklahoma (OK), Tennessee (TN), Iowa (IA) Quartzite (QZ) from South Dakota (SD)

CHAPTER FOUR: AGGREGATE CHRACTERIZATION PROGRAM

4.1

Introduction The physical property tests of MFA are presented in this chapter. Since

the aggregates for the mortar and concrete tests were selected based on the aggregate properties, this testing program was very crucial. The aggregate property tests consisted of specific gravity and absorption tests, wet sieve analysis, uncompacted void content test, hydrometer particle size analysis, chemical analysis using ICP technology, laser diffraction particle size analysis, and methylene blue test.

4.2

Materials Table 4.1 shows sixteen source aggregates (seven types of rock) that were

tested for aggregate characterization tests. A total of 112 sands were tested. After the aggregates were crushed in a Svedala-Barmac crusher, they were screened as shown in Table 4.2. The control variables were aggregate size (two or three different sizes from each aggregate producer) and crushing speed (as received [no crushing], 35, and 68 rpm). Aggregates from quarries 51, 55, 56, 57, 72 and 73 were crushed to produce a different number of sands as shown in Table 4.1.

50

51

Table 4.1: Tested Aggregates and Location in This Study Quarry ID No. 51 54 55 56 57 62 63 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Rock Type Dolomite Limestone Sandstone Dolomite Limestone Granite Quartzite Diabase Granite Granite Granite Basalt Granite Limestone Dolomite Sandstone Location (State) Oklahoma Pennsylvania Tennessee Virginia Minnesota South Dakota Virginia Wyoming Connecticut Virginia Missouri Iowa Arkansas No. of sands 5 8 7 5 3 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 5

52 Table 4.2 shows all samples used in the aggregate characterization tests. According to the screened sands, identification number (ID No.) was determined for each sample to differentiate all samples. In the table, location is the state in which the quarry is located and size is the maximum-minimum size of the aggregate as delivered by the producer. Speed is the impact speed of crusher head (00 means no crushing), cycle is the aggregate screening process (product is final material after crushing and as-received is the material received from the producer with no further crushing). One type of sand usually consisted of eight crushed sands (two as-received sands and six crushed products) except Oklahoma dolomite, Pennsylvania sandstone, Tennessee dolomite, Virginia limestone, Iowa dolomite and Arkansas Sandstone.

53 Table 4.2: Manufactured Sands Used in This Study

ID No. PA/LS/13-02/68 PA/LS/13-02/36 PA/LS/06-00/00 PA/LS/06-00/65 PA/LS/06-00/36 PA/LS/05-00/36 PA/LS/05-00/65 PA/LS/05-00/00 Location Type Size, mm Speed, m/s 13-02 13-02 06-00 06-00 06-00 05-00 05-00 05-00 19-02 19-02 06-00 06-00 05-00 06-00 05-00 05-00 19-02 19-02 06-00 06-00 06-00 05-00 05-00 05-00 06-00 13-02 13-02 06-00 06-00 05-00 05-00 05-00 68 36 00 65 36 36 65 00 35 68 68 35 68 00 35 00 68 36 00 65 36 00 65 36 00 68 36 65 36 00 65 36 Cycle product product as-received product product product product as-received product product product product product as-received product as-received product product as-received product product as-received product product as-received product product product product as-received product product

Pennsylvania Limestone (PA) (LS)

VA/70/GT/19-02/35 VA/70/GT/19-02/68 VA/70/GT/06-00/68 Virginia Granite VA/70/GT/06-00/35 (VA) (GT) VA/70/GT/05-00/68 VA/70/GT/06-00/00 VA/70/GT/05-00/35 VA/70/GT/05-00/00 SD/QZ/19-02/68 SD/QZ/19-02/36 SD/QZ/06-00/00 South Dakota Quartzite SD/QZ/06-00/65 (SD) (QZ) SD/QZ/06-00/36 SD/QZ/05-00/00 SD/QZ/05-00/65 SD/QZ/05-00/36 VA/DI/06-00/00 VA/DI/13-02/68 VA/DI/13-02/36 Virginia Diabase VA/DI/06-00/65 (VA) (DI) VA/DI/06-00/36 VA/DI/05-00/00 VA/DI/05-00/65 VA/DI/05-00/36

54 Table 4.2: Manufactured Sands Used in This Study (Continued)

ID No. OK/DO/19-02/68 OK/DO/19-02/36 OK/DO/06-00/00 OK/DO/06-00/65 OK/DO/06-00/36 VA/LS/05-00/00 VA/LS/05-00/65 VA/LS/05-00/36 Location Type Size, mm Speed, m/s 19-02 19-02 06-00 06-00 06-00 05-00 05-00 05-00 05-00 05-00 05-00 06-00 06-00 06-00 19-02 19-02 09-00 09-00 06-00 06-00 05-00 05-00 05-00 19-02 19-02 06-00 06-00 06-00 05-00 05-00 05-00 68 36 00 65 36 00 65 36 36 65 00 36 65 00 36 68 68 35 68 35 68 35 00 68 35 68 00 35 00 68 35 Cycle product product as-received product product as-received product product product product as-received product product as-received product product product product product product product product as-received product product product as-received product as-received product product

Oklahoma (OK)

Dolomite (DO)

Virginia (VA)

Limestone (LS)

CT/BA/05-00/36 CT/BA/05-00/65 CT/BA/05-00/00 CT/BA/06-00/36 Connecticut Basalt (CT) (BA) CT/BA/06-00/65 CT/BA/06-00/00 CT/BA/19-02/36 CT/BA/19-02/68 PA/SS/09-00/68 PA/SS/09-00/35 PA/SS/06-00/68 Pennsylvania Sandstone PA/SS/06-00/35 (PA) (SS) PA/SS/05-00/68 PA/SS/05-00/35 PA/SS/05-00/00 MO/LS/19-02/68 MO/LS/19-02/35 MO/LS/06-00/68 MO/LS/06-00/00 Missouri Limestone (MO) (LS) MO/LS/06-00/35 MO/LS/05-00/00 MO/LS/05-00/68 MO/LS/05-00/35

55 Table 4.2: Manufactured Sands Used in This Study (Continued)

ID No. VA/66/GT/13-02/35 VA/66/GT/13-02/68 VA/66/GT/06-00/68 VA/66/GT/06-00/35 VA/66/GT/05-00/68 VA/66/GT/06-00/00 VA/66/GT/05-00/35 VA/66/GT/05-00/00 Location Type Size, mm Speed, m/s 13-02 13-02 06-00 06-00 05-00 06-00 05-00 05-00 19-02 19-02 06-00 06-00 05-00 05-00 05-00 06-00 19-02 19-02 06-00 06-00 05-00 06-00 05-00 05-00 19-02 19-02 06-00 06-00 05-00 06-00 05-00 05-00 35 68 68 35 68 00 35 00 68 35 68 35 68 00 35 00 65 36 65 36 65 00 36 00 65 36 65 36 65 00 36 00 Cycle product product product product product as-received product as-recieved product product product product product as-received product as-recieved product product product product product as-received product as-recieved product product product product product as-received product as-recieved

Virginia (VA)

Granite

MN/GT/19-02/68 MN/GT/19-02/35 MN/GT/06-00/68 MN/GT/06-00/35 Minnesota (MN) MN/GT/05-00/68 MN/GT/05-00/00 MN/GT/05-00/35 MN/GT/06-00/00 CT/GT/19-02/65 CT/GT/19-02/36 CT/GT/06-00/65 CT/GT/06-00/36 Connecticut (CT) CT/GT/05-00/65 CT/GT/06-00/00 CT/GT/05-00/36 CT/GT/05-00/00 WY/GT/19-02/65 WY/GT/19-02/36 WY/GT/06-00/65 WY/GT/06-00/36 Wyoming (WY) WY/GT/05-00/65 WY/GT/06-00/00 WY/GT/05-00/36 WY/GT/05-00/00

Granite

Granite

Granite

56 Table 4.2: Manufactured Sands Used in This Study (Continued)

ID No. TN/DO/13-02/68 TN/DO/13-02/36 TN/DO/06-00/00 TN/DO/06-00/65 TN/DO/06-00/36 IA/DO/25-02/68 IA/DO/25-02/45 IA/DO/06-06/35 IA/DO/06-06/68 IA/DO/05-00/00 IA/DO/05-00/68 IA/DO/05-00/35 AR/SS/25-02/68 AR/SS/25-02/45 AR/SS/06-00/68 AR/SS/06-00/00 AR/SS/06-00/35 Location Type Size, mm Speed, m/s 13-02 13-02 06-00 06-00 06-00 25-02 25-02 06-06 06-06 05-00 05-00 05-00 25-02 25-02 06-00 06-00 06-00 68 36 00 65 36 68 45 35 68 00 68 35 68 45 68 00 35 Cycle product product as-received product product product product product product as-received product product product product product as-received product

Tennessee (TN)

Dolomite

Iowa (IA)

Dolomite

Arkansas (AR)

Sandstone

4.3

Testing Procedures for Aggregate Characterization

4.3.1 Specific Gravity and Absorption Capacity Test The specific gravity and absorption capacity of each aggregate are important because they affect the other characterization tests and are required for mortar and mixture proportioning of a concrete batch. The testing was conducted in accordance with ASTM C 128-97, Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate. The bulk, SSD (surface-saturated dry) and

57 apparent specific gravity and absorption capacity of the aggregate were determined by this test. The bulk specific gravity of the aggregate is used to calculate the volume occupied by the aggregate according to its weight. The absorption capacity of the fine aggregate is an indication of the weight of water that can be absorbed into its pores as the aggregate is in SSD condition.

4.3.2 Sieve Analysis by Washing The gradation, fineness modulus, and micro fines contents were determined by washing and sieving each aggregate sample. The material was washed

according to ASTM C 117-95, Standard Test Method for Materials Finer than No. 200 (75 m) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing. The gradation of the washed sample was determined in accordance with ASTM C 136-96a, Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates. In the study the aggregates were tested in the as-received condition, meaning the aggregates were not recombined to achieve a specific gradation. Based on the results of the sieve analysis each aggregate was classified according to the percentage of material passing the No. 200 (75 m) sieve.

58 4.3.3 Uncompacted Void Content Test The particle shape of fine aggregate is important since it influences the workability, finishability and water demand of fresh concrete which, in turn, influences hardened properties of the concrete. The uncompacted void content of a sample of fine aggregate can indicate the angularity, sphericity and surface texture of the aggregate relative to another aggregate of the same gradation. The influence in fresh and hardened properties is due to changes in water demand by the fine aggregate. ASTM C 1252-93, Standard Test Methods for Uncompacted Void Content of Fine Aggregate (as Influenced by Particle Shape, Surface Texture and Grading) methods A, B, and C were preformed on all aggregate samples. In the specification title, ASTM C 1252 is introduced as a test for determining the particle shape and surface texture of fine aggregates. However, the problem with this type of volumetric test is that the test will not distinguish between the two separate characteristics, since particles can have similar shapes and volumes, but differing surface textures. Hudson has investigated test methods that will distinguish between these characteristics [Hudson, 1999].

59 4.3.4 Hydrometer Particle Size Analysis The use of hydrometers to determine the particle size distribution is primarily a test for soils. Only material passing the No. 200 (75 m) sieve was used in the test. This test was conducted in accordance with ASTM D 422-90, Standard Test Method for Particle Size Analysis of Soils.

4.3.5 Methylene Blue Test The methylene blue test is one of the most important tests in this study. Since the test samples contain high quantities of micro fines, the test of the properties of the micro fines is definitely a crucial test. The methylene blue test was introduced from France as an effective method to evaluate the presence of potential harmful materials in an aggregate finer than No. 200 (75 m) sieve. The test procedure used in this study was developed in NCHRP Project 4-19 [NCHRP, 1998] for determining the presence of potentially deleterious materials in aggregate. ASTM C 837-92 is another test used to measure methylene blue absorption; however it is intended more for clay than for crushed aggregate fines. The test was performed by saturating a 10.0g ( 0.05g) sample of material passing the No. 200 (75m) sieve with 30g of distilled water. One gram of methylene blue is dissolved in enough distilled water to produce 200 ml of solution, with each 1 ml of solution containing 5 mg of methylene blue. With the slurry still mixing, 0.5 ml of methylene blue solution is added into the slurry and

60 stirred for one minute. A small amount of water, which contains the sample material and titrated methylene blue, is removed via a glass rod and dropped onto filter paper. If a light blue halo is not observed, an additional 0.5 ml of MB is added and stirred. The procedure continues until the halo is observed. amount of MB required to produce the halo is the amount recorded. The

4.3.6 Particle Size Analysis using Coutler LS130 Laser Diffraction Analyzer Since the hydrometer particle size analysis shows the percent passing of micro fines by weight according to particle size, it is difficult to know the actual volume distribution of the micro fines. Hence, another particle size analysis was performed by Paul Lessard at Granite Rock Company in California. Twenty-nine samples (mortar test samples) were tested using the Coutler LS130 laser diffraction analyzer.

4.3.7 Chemical Analysis The chemical analysis of the aggregates employed inductively coupled plasma (ICP) technology that was performed in the Geochemistry Analytical Lab at The University of Texas at Austin. First, ten grams of selected manufactured sand samples were ground finer than 75m. The 10-gram sample was immersed in water and sprayed into a high temperature plasma as shown in Figure 4.1. Then excited free atoms were produced (e.g., high temperature gas that is a mixture of

61 ions and electrons in a magnetic field). The wavelength of the resulting atomic emission is a function of a particular element, and the intensity is a function of concentration [Ingamells, 1986]. Through this process, the chemical composition of a sample was obtained. A typical ICP spectrometer configuration is shown in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.1: Illustration of Typical Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) Torch used as Source in Emission Spectrometry [Ingamells, 1986]

62

Figure 4.2: Illustration of Typical ICP Configuration [Ingamells, 1986]

4.4

Test Results and Discussion

4.4.1 Specific Gravity and Absorption Capacity Test Table 4.3 shows the test results for specific gravity, absorption capacity, micro fines content, and methylene blue for 112 sands. The complete test results of specific gravity and absorption capacity test are shown in Appendix A (Table A.1). As shown in Table 4.3, South Dakota quartzite, 66-Virginia granite,

Connecticut granite, and some of the Pennsylvania sandstone had lower absorption capacity (bold items).

63 Table 4.3: Test Results of Bulk Specific Gravity, Absorption Capacity, Micro Fines Content, and Methylene Blue
ID No. PA/LS/13-02/68 PA/LS/13-02/36 PA/LS/06-00/00 PA/LS/06-00/65 PA/LS/06-00/36 PA/LS/05-00/36 PA/LS/05-00/65 PA/LS/05-00/00 VA/70/GT/19-02/35 VA/70/GT/19-02/68 VA/70/GT/06-00/68 VA/70/GT/06-00/35 VA/70/GT/05-00/68 VA/70/GT/06-00/00 VA/70/GT/05-00/35 VA/70/GT/05-00/00 SD/QZ/19-02/68 SD/QZ/19-02/36 SD/QZ/06-00/00 SD/QZ/06-00/65 SD/QZ/06-00/36 SD/QZ/05-00/00 SD/QZ/05-00/65 SD/QZ/05-00/36 VA/DI/06-00/00 VA/DI/13-02/68 VA/DI/13-02/36 VA/DI/06-00/65 VA/DI/06-00/36 VA/DI/05-00/00 VA/DI/05-00/65 VA/DI/05-00/36 Bulk Specific Absorption Micro fines Methylene Blue Gravity (OD) (%) Content (%) Value 2.62 1.6 7.9 1.50 2.63 1.1 5.5 1.50 2.63 1.3 3.6 2.25 2.57 2.8 10.2 1.25 2.63 1.5 7.5 1.25 2.60 1.9 10.2 1.50 2.52 2.6 14.3 1.50 2.57 1.7 10.0 1.50 2.71 1.5 7.8 1.25 2.71 2.0 11.7 1.25 2.72 1.7 18.4 3.50 2.74 1.5 16.3 3.00 2.73 1.6 13.3 1.25 2.68 2.4 15.2 2.75 2.72 1.5 7.1 1.50 2.74 1.2 5.6 1.25 2.64 0 .1 * 11.6 0.50 2.63 0 .3 8.1 0.75 0 .6 2.61 7.4 1.25 2.64 13.5 0.75 0 .3 0 .2 2.64 11.0 1.00 2.62 0 .4 1.7 1.50 2.64 0 .1 8.4 1.00 0 .3 2.63 3.9 1.50 2.77 1.1 11.3 3.50 2.76 1.3 9.6 3.25 2.70 2.3 8.3 3.75 2.80 0.8 15.8 4.00 2.79 1.1 13.5 3.25 2.77 1.6 4.2 3.50 2.75 1.9 9.6 3.75 2.77 1.5 5.8 3.25

64 Table 4.3: Test Results of Bulk Specific Gravity, Absorption Capacity, Micro Fines Content, and Methylene Blue (Continued)
ID No. OK/DO/19-02/68 OK/DO/19-02/36 OK/DO/06-00/00 OK/DO/06-00/65 OK/DO/06-00/36 VA/LS/05-00/00 VA/LS/05-00/65 VA/LS/05-00/36 CT/BA/05-00/36 CT/BA/05-00/65 CT/BA/05-00/00 CT/BA/06-00/36 CT/BA/06-00/65 CT/BA/06-00/00 CT/BA/19-02/36 CT/BA/19-02/68 PA/SS/09-00/68 PA/SS/09-00/35 PA/SS/06-00/68 PA/SS/06-00/35 PA/SS/05-00/68 PA/SS/05-00/35 PA/SS/05-00/00 MO/LS/19-02/68 MO/LS/19-02/35 MO/LS/06-00/68 MO/LS/06-00/00 MO/LS/06-00/35 MO/LS/05-00/00 MO/LS/05-00/68 MO/LS/05-00/35 Bulk Specific Absorption Micro fines Methylene Blue Gravity (OD) (%) Content (%) Value 2.69 2.69 2.70 2.71 2.67 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.8 14.8 10.4 11.2 16.7 13.4 4.5 13.3 7.4 8.0 10.9 4.7 15.0 16.1 12.7 12.9 14.3 10.3 7.5 9.2 5.3 9.6 4.0 2.2 15.8 13.5 1.25 1.50 2.75 2.25 2.25

2 .8 2 2 .8 3 2 .8 2
2.78 2.83 2.81 2.79 2.76 2.77 2.79 2.82 2.63 2.57 2.60 2.56 2.64 2.59 2.60 2.65 2.64 2.57 2.56 2.45 2.53 2.53 2.54

0 .5 0 .3 0 .4
2.7 1.6 2.4 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.3 1.2

0 .2 5 0 .2 5 0 .2 5
3.00 3.00 3.00 3.25 3.00 3.25 3.00 2.00 0.75 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 2.75 4.00

0 .3
1.1 0.8 1.3

0 .1
0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 1.4 1.9 3.5 2.8 2.3 2.5

3 0 .2 1 8 .4 2 9 .3
4.2 15.8 8.3

1 2 .0 0 1 0 .0 0 1 1 .5 0
7.50 5.00 4.50

65 Table 4.3: Test Results of Bulk Specific Gravity, Absorption Capacity, Micro Fines Content, and Methylene Blue (Continued)
ID No. VA/66/GT/13-02/35 VA/66/GT/13-02/68 VA/66/GT/06-00/68 VA/66/GT/06-00/35 VA/66/GT/05-00/68 VA/66/GT/06-00/00 VA/66/GT/05-00/35 VA/66/GT/05-00/00 MN/GT/19-02/68 MN/GT/19-02/35 MN/GT/06-00/68 MN/GT/06-00/35 MN/GT/05-00/68 MN/GT/05-00/00 MN/GT/05-00/35 MN/GT/06-00/00 CT/GT/19-02/65 CT/GT/19-02/36 CT/GT/06-00/65 CT/GT/06-00/00 CT/GT/06-00/36 CT/GT/05-00/00 CT/GT/05-00/65 CT/GT/05-00/36 WY/GT/19-02/65 WY/GT/19-02/36 WY/GT/06-00/00 WY/GT/06-00/65 WY/GT/06-00/36 WY/GT/05-00/00 WY/GT/05-00/65 WY/GT/05-00/36 Bulk Specific Absorption Micro fines Methylene Blue Gravity (OD) (%) Content (%) Value 2.66 9.6 1.50 0.3 2.67 13.8 1.75 0.2 2.69 18.7 1.50 0.1 2.68 13.6 1.50 0.2 2.65 11.9 1.25 0.3 2.70 12.4 1.50 0.4 2.68 4.9 1.25 0.4 2.65 2.3 1.25 N/A 2.65 10.8 2.25 0.3 2.65 7.7 2.00 0.5 2.66 14.3 2.50 0.3 2.65 4.5 2.00 0.6 2.63 10.8 2.00 0.5 2.63 2.0 3.00 0.9 2.64 4.1 2.50 0.8 2.66 5.3 2.50 0.6 13.5 1.00 2.82 0 .2 14.7 1.00 2.82 0 .2 2.82 17.1 1.50 0 .4 13.5 1.50 2.77 0 .6 20.7 1.50 2.80 0 .6 3.5 1.00 2.79 0 .8 6.5 1.25 2.77 0 .2 15.7 1.25 2.79 0 .5 2.72 15.6 3.00 0.4 2.70 11.8 3.50 0.5 2.68 9.0 7.00 1.2 2.67 14.3 5.50 0.3 2.65 11.1 5.00 0.7 2.67 2.8 3.50 1.2 2.67 14.8 3.00 0.4 2.66 6.4 3.00 0.9

66 Table 4.3: Test Results of Bulk Specific Gravity, Absorption Capacity, Micro Fines Content, and Methylene Blue (Continued)
ID No. Bulk Specific Absorption Micro fines Methylene Blue Gravity (OD) (%) Content (%) Value

TN/DO/13-02/68 2.83 0.4 15.7 0.50 TN/DO/13-02/36 2.81 0.7 11.9 0.50 TN/DO/06-00/00 2.83 0.8 11.1 0.50 TN/DO/06-00/65 2.82 0.4 15.5 0.50 TN/DO/06-00/36 2.79 0.8 13.1 0.50 IA/DO/25-02/68 2.79 0.2 26.5 0.50 IA/DO/25-02/45 2.80 0.6 22.2 0.25 IA/DO/06-06/35 2.82 1.2 13.3 0.75 IA/DO/06-06/68 2.84 0.4 23.8 0.50 IA/DO/05-00/00 2.76 2.8 5.2 1.00 IA/DO/05-00/68 2.79 0.2 24.3 0.50 IA/DO/05-00/35 2.83 0.9 12.0 0.75 1 .4 AR/SS/25-02/68 2.74 7.6 6.00 AR/SS/25-02/45 2.73 1.4 4.3 5.50 AR/SS/06-00/68 2.75 1.9 9.6 6.00 AR/SS/06-00/00 2.75 2.0 6.8 6.00 AR/SS/06-00/35 2.73 1.8 7.7 6.50 *Items in bold indicate values found much higher or lower than typical.

Quartzite and sandstone have high quantities (about 80%) of quartz [Waddell, 1993]; as a result, the absorption is lower. Virginia limestone, however, had low absorption capacity even though the materials have little quartz. As a result, it was concluded that if a sample has a high quantity of quartz, the sample usually has low absorption capacity; however, a low quantity of quartz in a sample does not necessarily result in high absorption capacity.

67 In addition Virginia limestone, Tennessee dolomite, and some Iowa dolomite showed higher specific gravity values (at oven dry condition) as well as lower absorption capacity, which seems to indicate that the molecular structures of these particles is pretty tight and dense. The higher specific gravity and lower absorption capacity of Virginia limestone, Tennessee dolomite and some Iowa dolomite may improve the properties of the concrete. The test results for specific gravity and absorption capacity were used in the mix proportioning of mortar and concrete batches.

4.4.2

Sieve Analysis by Washing Table 4.3 shows the micro fines content for each sample. It is noted that

some of the Missouri limestone has the highest (up to 30%) micro fines content. On the other hand some of South Dakota quartzite has the lowest (1.7%) micro fines content. As shown in the table, the samples usually have 5 to 20% of micro fines content. The percentage increased as crushing speed was increased. All of the wet sieve analysis results are shown in Appendix A (Table A.2). Table A.2 shows the amount of cumulative passing for each sieve size as a percentage of total sample by weight and fineness modulus of the sand based on ASTM C 33 (calculation up to No. 100 sieve). The gradation graphs of each sample are shown in Figures 4.3 through 4.18. For clarity only the graphs of the samples used in mortar tests are presented.

68 As shown in the figures, the gradations of most MFA do not satisfy the ASTM C 33 grading specification. Under current practice, aggregate producers compensate the insufficient portion and remove excess fines to meet ASTM C 33. However, in this study nearly all crushed samples were used in mortar and concrete tests as they were produced even if they did not meet ASTM C 33, since the main objective of this study was the development of guidelines for mix proportioning of concrete and modifications to existing construction specifications incorporating higher fines contents.
100
PA/LS/13-02/68

90

PA/LS/06-00/65 PA/LS/05-00/65 PA/LS/05-00/00 ASTM Upper ASTM Lower

Percent Passing by Weight

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3/8" #4 #8

Sieve Sizes

#16

#30

#50

#100

#200

Figure 4.3: Gradations of Pennsylvania Limestone

69

100

Percent Passing by Weight

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50

VA/GT/06-00/68 VA/GT/05-00/68 VA/GT/06-00/00 ASTM Upper ASTM Lower

Sieve Sizes

#100

#200

Figure 4.4: Gradations of 70-Virginia Granite

100

SD/QZ/19-02/68
90

Percent Passing by Weight

SD/QZ/06-00/65 SD/QZ/05-00/00 SD/QZ/05-00/65 ASTM Upper ASTM Lower

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

3/8"

#4

#8

#16

#30

#50

#100

#200

Sieve Sizes
Figure 4.5: Gradations of South Dakota Quartz

70

100

Percent Passing by Weight

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3/8" #4 #8

VA/DI/06-00/00 VA/DI/06-00/65 VA/DI/05-00/65 ASTM Upper ASTM Lower

Sieve Sizes

#16

#30

#50

#100

#200

Figure 4.6: Gradations of Virginia Diabase

100 90
O K /D O /06-00/00 O K /D O /06-00/65 O K /D O /06-00/36 A S TM U pper A S TM Lower

Percent Passing by Weight

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3/8" #4 #8

S ieve S izes

#16

#30

# 50

#100

#200

Figure 4.7: Gradations of Oklahoma Dolomite

71

100

Percent Passing by Weight

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50

VA/LS/05-00/00 VA/LS/05-00/65 VA/LS/05-00/36 ASTM Upper ASTM Lower

Sieve Sizes

#100

#200

Figure 4.8: Gradations of Virginia Limestone

100

Percent Passing by Weight

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50

CT/BA/06-00/36 CT/BA/06-00/00 CT/BA/19-02/68 ASTM Upper ASTM Lower

Sieve Sizes

#100

#200

Figure 4.9: Gradations of Connecticut Basalt

72
100 90

Percent Passing by Weight

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100

PA/SS/09-00/68 PA/SS/06-00/68 PA/SS/05-00/00 ASTM Upper ASTM Lower

Sieve Sizes

#200

Figure 4.10: Gradations of Pennsylvania Sandstone

100 90

Percent Passing by Weight

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3/8" #4 #8

MO/LS/19-02/68 MO/LS/06-00/00 MO/LS/05-00/68 ASTM Upper ASTM Lower

Sieve Sizes

#16

#30

#50

#100

#200

Figure 4.11: Gradations of Missouri Limestone

73

100 90
VA/66/GT/13-02/68 VA/66/GT/06-00/68 VA/66/GT/06-00/00 ASTM Upper ASTM Lower

Percent Passing by Weight

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3/8" #4 #8

Sieve Sizes

#16

#30

#50

#100

#200

Figure 4.12: Gradations of 66-Virginia Granite

100 90
MN/62/GT/06-00/68 MN/62/GT/05-00/68 MN/62/GT/06-00/00 ASTM Upper ASTM Lower

Percent Passing by Weight

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3/8" #4 #8

Sieve Sizes

#16

#30

#50

#100

#200

Figure 4.13: Gradations of Minnesota Granite

74

100 90
CT/68/GT/19-02/65 CT/68/GT/06-00/00 CT/68/GT/05-00/36 ASTM Upper ASTM Lower

Percent Passing by Weight

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3/8" #4 #8

Sieve Sizes

#16

#30

#50

#100

#200

Figure 4.14: Gradations of Connecticut Granite

100 90
W Y/67/GT/19-02/65 W Y/67/GT/06-00/00 W Y/67/GT/05-00/65 ASTM Upper ASTM Lower

Percent Passing by Weight

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3/8" #4 #8

Sieve Sizes

#16

#30

#50

#100

#200

Figure 4.15: Gradations of Wyoming Granite

75

100 90
TN/56/DO/13-02/68 TN/56/DO/06-00/00 TN/56/DO/06-00/65 ASTM Upper ASTM Lower

Percent Passing by Weight

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3/8" #4 #8

Sieve Sizes

#16

#30

#50

#100

#200

Figure 4.16: Gradations of Tennessee Dolomite

100 90
IA/72/DO/25-02/68 IA/72/DO/06-06/68 IA/72/DO/05-00/00 IA/72/DO/05-00/68 ASTM Upper ASTM Lower

Percent Passing by Weight

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3/8" #4 #8

Sieve Sizes

#16

#30

#50

#100

#200

Figure 4.17: Gradations of Iowa Dolomite

76

100

Percent Passing by Weight

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3/8" #4 #8

AR/73/SS/06-00/68 AR/73/SS/06-00/00 ASTM Upper ASTM Lower

Sieve Sizes

#16

#30

#50

#100

#200

Figure 4.18: Gradations of Arkansas Sandstone

4.4.3 Uncompacted Void Content Test The uncompacted void content test results are shown in Appendix A (Table A.3) for selected aggregates. As shown in the table, the void contents of the samples are similar except for method C. The method C gave low void contents due to using the whole sample instead of a part of sample. In Table A.3, the results using ASTM C 1252-93 do not appear to present adequate definition of the particle shape and texture of crushed fine aggregate.

77 Hudson, of Aggregate Research Industries, and Ownby, of Vulcan Materials Company, developed a related method that uses the modified uncomapacted void content concept to characterize the particle shape and texture of fine aggregate [Hudson, personal communication]. The apparatus measures the angle and height of repose and flow rate of a fine aggregate dropped from a standard height. The angle will indicate the amount of internal friction in the aggregate and the particle shape can be known by measuring the flow rate and the height of repose. However, the apparatus was not developed in time to be used for this study.

4.4.4 Hydrometer Particle Size Analysis The test results of hydrometer particle size analysis for selected aggregates are included in Appendix A (Figures A.1 through A.63). Since this test could show the distribution of particle size up to only 30 m, another particle size analysis was needed to get more accurate information for the samples.

4.4.5 Methylene Blue Test Table 4.3 shows methylene blue test results. The methylene blue value (MBV) was usually 0.25 to 4.00 except for Missouri limestone, Arkansas sandstone, and some Wyoming granite. Virginia limestone, Pennsylvania

sandstone, South Dakota quartzite, Connecticut granite, Tennessee and Iowa

78 dolomite showed lower MBV (less than 1.50) compared to other samples. On the other hand Missouri limestone had the highest MBV ranging up to 12.00. The highest MBV for the Missouri limestone was nearly 50 times higher than for Virginia limestone. The reason is not clear, but is thought to be due to either the presence of clay or silt, possibly from overburdening and/or the higher amount of very fine particles in the Missouri limestone.

4.4.6 Particle Size Analysis using Coutler LS130 Laser Diffraction Analyzer Using a Coutler LS130 laser diffraction analyzer, a selected 29 samples (used also in mortar tests) were tested for particle size analysis. The analysis time was 60 seconds, obscuration was typically between 8 to 12%, and pump speed was 51%. Figures 4.19 through 4.27 show the test results of particle size analysis using Coutler LS130 laser diffraction analyzer for each rock type. The particle sizes in the distribution of most samples show that the highest volume is for the particle size range from 56 to 73m. As shown in Figure 4.19, however, the particle size distribution of Pennsylvania limestone has the highest volumes in the vicinity of particle size 10m (1st peak) and 60m (2nd peak).

79

3.5 3 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.3 0.7 1.8 4.6 11.4 28.3 70.3 Particle Size (um) PA/LS/13-02/68 PA/LS/06-00/65 PA/LS/05-00/65 PA/LS/05-00/00

Figure 4. 19: Particle Size Analysis of Pennsylvania Limestone by Volume

6

Volume (%)

VA/GT/06-00/68 VA/GT/05-00/68 VA/GT/06-00/00

0 1.0 4.2 17.9 77.0

Particle Size (um)

Figure 4. 20: Particle Size Analysis of Virginia Granite by Volume

80

7 6 5

Volume (%)

4 3 2 1 0 1.0

SD/QZ/19-02/68 SD/QZ/06-00/65 SD/QZ/05-00/00 SD/QZ/05-00/65

4.2

17.9

77.0

Particle Size (um)

Figure 4.21: Particle Size Analysis of South Dakota Quartzite by Volume

7 6 5

VA/DI/06-00/00 VA/DI/06-00/65 VA/DI/05-00/65

Volume (%)

4 3 2 1 0 1.0 4.2 17.9 77.0

Particle Size (um)

Figure 4.22: Particle Size Analysis of Virginia Diabase by Volume

81

7 6 5

OK/DO/06-00/00 OK/DO/06-00/65 OK/DO/06-00/36

Volume (%)

4 3 2 1 0 1.0 4.2 17.9 77.0

Particle Size (um)

Figure 4.23: Particle Size Analysis of Oklahoma Dolomite by Volume

7 6 5

VA/LS/05-00/00 VA/LS/05-00/65 VA/LS/05-00/36

Volume (%)

4 3 2 1 0 1.0 4.2 17.9 77.0

Particle Size (um)

Figure 4.24: Particle Size Analysis of Virginia Limestone by Volume

82

7 6 5

CT/BA/06-00/36 CT/BA/06-00/00 CT/BA/19-02/68

Volume (%)

4 3 2 1 0 1.0 4.2 17.9 77.0

Particle Size (um)

Figure 4.25: Particle Size Analysis of Connecticut Basalt by Volume

7 6 5

PA/SS/09-00/68 PA/SS/06-00/68 PA/SS/05-00/00

Volume (%)

4 3 2 1 0 1.0 4.2 17.9 77.0

Particle Size (um)

Figure 4.26: Particle Size Analysis of Pennsylvania Limestone by Volume

83

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.3 0.7 1.8 4.6 11.4 28.3 70.3

MO/LS/19-02/68 MO/LS/06-00/00 MO/LS/05-00/68

Volume (%)

Particle Size (um)

Figure 4.27: Particle Size Analysis of Missouri Limestone by Volume In addition, as shown in Figure 4.27, the particle size distribution of the Missouri limestone as-received sample (MO/LS/06-00/00) shows high volume around particle size 18m. After crushing the distribution was changed to high volumes around particle size 60m (1st peak) and 15m (2nd peak). The remainder of the selected aggregate test results for particle size analyses is in Appendix A (Figures A.64 through A.92).

4.4.7 Chemical Analysis There were two series of chemical analyses in this study. Series 1 used the selected aggregate samples with micro fines directly delivered from the quarry,

84 and series 2 used material obtained from crushing size larger than 4.75mm. This test was conducted by the ICP technology in the Geochemistry Analytical Lab at The University of Texas at Austin on selected aggregate types used in this study. The chemical compositions examined in this study included CaO, MgO, Fe2O3, Na2O, K2O, MnO, TiO2, SiO2, Al2O3, and ignition. The results of the chemical analyses are shown in Tables 4.4 and 4.5. It is noted that there is a difference in results between series 1 and 2 for Missouri limestone (bold items). The lower amount of K2O, SiO2, and Al2O3 in series 2 may indicate that clay, probably from overburdening, was present in the as-received materials (series 1).

Table 4.4: Chemical Composition (%) of Series 1 (As-Received)

ID No.
PA/LS/05-00/00 VA/GT/06-00/00 SD/QZ/05-00/00 VA/DI/06-00/00 OK/DO/06-00/00 VA/LS/05-00/00 CT/BA/06-00/00 PA/SS/05-00/00 MO/LS/06-00/00

CaO
45.1 5.8 0.4 7.4 25.0 30.1 9.5 0.3

MgO
3.3 4.3 0.0 5.2 15.3 21.1 5.7 0.3 1.3

Fe2O3
0.8 7.7 0.4 8.7 1.1 0.3 12.3 0.9 1.6

Na2O
0.1 2.8 0.6 2.7 0.4 0.3 2.4 0.5 0.5

K2O
0.0 1.4 0.4 1.9 3.0 0.4 0.3 1.5

MnO
0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1

TiO2
0.1 0.9 0.3 1.1 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.3

SiO2
11.0 57.3 92.4 52.6 15.5 2.0 51.3 87.7

Al2O3
1.5 16.4 3.7 17.4 3.4 0.6 14.5 5.7

Ignition
38.8 2.9 1.3 2.1 36.0 45.7 2.5 2.0

37.6

1.1

22.0

5.3

30.2

Table 4.5: Chemical Composition (%) of Series 2 (Crushed from Size > 4.75mm)
ID No.
PA/LS/05-00/00 VA/GT/06-00/00 SD/QZ/05-00/00 VA/DI/06-00/00 OK/DO/06-00/00 VA/LS/05-00/00 CT/BA/06-00/00 PA/SS/05-00/00 MO/LS/06-00/00

CaO
44.4 6.1 0.0 6.2 24.5 27.0 9.6 0.4

MgO
2.5 2.2 0.0 5.0 16.1 19.9 5.8 0.3 0.8

Fe2O3
0.5 5.2 0.1 8.2 0.8 0.2 12.3 0.1 0.8

Na2O
0.0 4.5 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.6 0.1

K2O
0.0 0.6 0.0 2.3 2.1 0.0 0.7 1.4

MnO
0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1

TiO2
0.1 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.1

SiO2
12.4 60.3 97.1 57.3 17.5 6.7 51.8 89.4

Al2O3
1.4 16.7 0.9 15.6 2.7 0.4 13.8 5.0

Ignition
39.6 2.7 1.0 1.6 36.5 45.8 1.6 1.7

50.2

0.0

8.9

1.4

38.3
85

86 4.5 Results of Other Aggregate Characterization Tests Vulcan Materials Company and Svedala Barmac performed a companion study on over 200 aggregate samples from 29 locations using 3 different types of rock. The results of these aggregate characterization tests can be found in

Appendix B.

4.6

Summary Aggregate characterization tests were performed for sixteen sources of

aggregates (seven types of rock). Numerous sands were tested for seven physical properties. South Dakota quartzite, 66-Virginia granite, Connecticut granite, and some of Pennsylvania sandstone had lower absorption capacity. Quartzite and sandstone had high quantities (about 80%) of quartz; as a result the absorption was lower. Virginia limestone, however, had low absorption capacity even though the material has little quartz. As a result, it is concluded that if a sample has a high quantity of quartz and the sample usually has low absorption capacity; however, a low quantity of quartz in a sample does not always result in high absorption capacity. In addition Virginia limestone, Tennessee and Iowa dolomite showed higher specific gravity (at oven dry condition) as well as lower absorption capacity.

87 Most samples had 5 to 20% micro fines content. The Missouri limestone had the highest (up to 30%) micro fines content; on the other hand some South Dakota quartzite had the lowest (1.7%). The percentage of micro fines was

definitely increased as crushing speed was increased. The gradations of most MFA in this study did not meet ASTM C33 specification. The void contents of the samples are similar. It is concluded that ASTM C1252 is not an adequate test to differentiate particle shape and texture of MFA. Since the hydrometer particle size analysis test measures distribution of size up to only 30m, another particle size analysis was needed to get more accurate information of the samples. The methylene blue value (MBV) was usually 0.25 to 4.00 except for Missouri limestone, Arkansas sandstone and some Wyoming granite. MBVs of less than 1.50 were obtained for Virginia limestone, Pennsylvania sandstone, Connecticut granite, South Dakota quartzite and Tennessee and Iowa dolomite. Missouri limestone had the highest MBV, up to 12.00. The reason is not clear, but is thought to be due to either the presence of clay or silt and/or the higher amount of very fine particles in the Missouri limestone. Using a Coutler LS130 laser diffraction analyzer on a selected number of samples, the particle size distribution of most of these samples shows that the highest volume is for the particle size range from 56 to 73m. However, the particle size distribution of Pennsylvania limestone showed the highest volumes in

88 the vicinity of particle size 10m (1st peak) and 60m (2nd peak). In addition, the particle size distribution of the Missouri limestone as-received sample (MO/LS/0600/00) showed high volume around particle size 18m. After crushing the

distribution was changed to high volumes around particle size 60m (1st peak) and 15m (2nd peak). There were two series of chemical analyses performed on selected aggregates in this study. Series 1 used micro fines as received from the quarry, and series 2 used the same aggregates but the test samples resulted from crushing of sizes larger than 4.75mm. It is noted that there is a difference in results between series 1 and 2 for Missouri limestone (bold items). The lower amount of K2O, SiO2, and Al2O3 in series 2 may indicate that overburden containing clay was present in the as-received materials (Series 1).

CHAPTER FIVE: MORTAR TESTING PROGRAM

5.1

Introduction After screening and performing aggregate characterization tests, mortar

tests were performed to investigate the effect of MFA on the mortar paste. The following sections outline the materials, the test procedures, and the results and discussion of mortar tests using the selected sands based on the aggregate characterization test results. The materials and procedures used throughout this study conform to procedures approved by an accepted standard except mixture proportioning did not conform ASTM C 33. With the mortar test results,

statistical analyses were conducted as described in Chapter 7. Based on the mortar test results several sands were also selected for the concrete testing stage.

5.2

Materials

5.2.1 Portland Cement Commercially available Type I cement was used throughout this study. It conformed to ASTM C 150-94, Standard Specification for Portland Cement.

5.2.2 Mixing Water Potable City of Austin water was used throughout the laboratory batching series and was assumed to have a specific gravity of 37 kg/m3 (62.4 lbs/cy). 89

90 5.2.3 Fine Aggregate Table 5.1 shows aggregate samples (seven types of rock) that were tested for mortar tests. Based on the characterization test results some sands were

selected on the following basis: 1) 2) 3) 4) At least one as-received sample per aggregate type A total of two to four samples per aggregate type Sands containing higher amounts of micro fines Sands with very low contents of micro fines

Some of the selected as-received samples were subjected to chemical analysis. Particular selected samples underwent particle size analysis using a

Coutler LS130 Laser Diffraction Analyzer. At least one as-received sample per aggregate type was selected to compare the results of other crushed aggregates. Since one of the objectives of this study was the determination of the effect of higher amounts for several types of crusher fines on mortar and concrete properties, two to four samples per aggregate type were selected based on higher micro fines contents. They included the samples with very low micro fines contents to compare to those with higher contents. As a result 50 sands (see Table 5.1) were selected for mortar testing and 29 of those samples were subjected to particle size analysis using a Coutler LS130 Laser Diffraction Analyzer.

91

Table 5.1: Aggregates for Mortar Tests

ID No. PA/LS/13-02/68 PA/LS/06-00/65 Pennsylvania Limestone PA/LS/05-00/65 PA/LS/05-00/00 VA/GT/06-00/68 VA/GT/05-00/68 VA/GT/06-00/00 SD/QZ/19-02/68 SD/QZ/06-00/65 SD/QZ/05-00/00 SD/QZ/05-00/65 VA/DI/06-00/00 VA/DI/06-00/65 VA/DI/05-00/65 OK/DO/06-00/00 OK/DO/06-00/65 OK/DO/06-00/36 VA/LS/05-00/00 VA/LS/05-00/65 VA/LS/05-00/36 CT/BA/06-00/36 CT/BA/06-00/00 CT/BA/19-02/68 PA/SS/09-00/68 PA/SS/06-00/68 Pennsylvania Sandstone PA/SS/05-00/00 MO/LS/19-02/68 MO/LS/06-00/00 MO/LS/05-00/68 Missouri Limestone Connecticut Basalt Virginia Limestone Oklahoma Dolomite Virginia Diabase South Dakota Quartzite Virginia Granite Location Type Size, mm Speed, m/s 13-02 06-00 05-00 05-00 06-00 05-00 06-00 19-02 06-00 05-00 05-00 06-00 06-00 05-00 06-00 06-00 06-00 05-00 05-00 05-00 06-00 06-00 19-02 09-00 06-00 05-00 19-02 06-00 05-00 68 65 65 00 68 68 00 68 65 00 65 00 65 65 00 65 36 00 65 36 36 00 68 68 68 00 68 00 68 Cycle product product product as-received product product as-received product product as-received product as-received product product as-received product product as-received product product product as-received product product product as-received product as-received product

92 Table 5.1: Aggregates for Mortar Tests (Continued)

ID No. Location Type Granite Size, mm Speed, m/s 13-02 06-00 06-00 06-00 05-00 06-00 19-02 06-00 05-00 19-02 06-00 05-00 13-02 06-00 06-00 25-02 06-06 05-00 05-00 06-00 06-00 68 68 00 68 68 00 65 00 36 65 00 65 68 00 65 68 68 00 68 68 00 Cycle product product as-received product product as-received product as-received product product as-received product product as-received product product product as-received product product as-received

VA/GT/13-02/68 Virginia VA/GT/06-00/68 VA/GT/06-00/00 MN/GT/06-00/68 MN/GT/05-00/68 Minnesota MN/GT/06-00/00 CT/GT/19-02/65 CT/GT/06-00/00 Connecticut CT/GT/05-00/36 WY/GT/19-02/65 WY/GT/06-00/00 WY/GT/05-00/65 TN/DO/13-02/68 TN/DO/06-00/00 TN/DO/06-00/65 IA/DO/25-02/68 IA/DO/06-06/68 IA/DO/05-00/00 IA/DO/05-00/68 AR/SS/06-00/68 AR/SS/06-00/00 Wyoming

Granite

Granite

Granite

Tennessee

Dolomite

Iowa

Dolomite

Arkansas

Sandstone

5.3

Testing Procedures for Mortar Tests The mixing procedure for mortars was in accordance with ASTM C 305-

94, Standard Practice for Mechanical Mixing of Hydraulic Cement Pastes and Mortars of Plastic Consistency. following section. The testing procedure for mortar is in the

93 5.3.1 Flow The flow table test was conducted in accordance with ASTM C 109/C 109M-95, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars using the flow table in accordance with ASTM C 230-97, Standard Specification for Flow Table for Use in Tests of Hydraulic Cement. After the mortar paste was filled and tamped (two layers) into a flow mold, the flow table plate was dropped 25 times in 15s. Using the calipers, the flow was determined by measuring the diameter of mortar paste on the table. The standard flow of mortar was 110 5. This test was used to evaluate workability of the mortar paste. Also water demand of each sand could be known.

5.3.2 Compressive Strength The test of compressive strength was conducted according to ASTM C 109/C 109M-95, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 50-mm [2-in.] cube specimens). This test was used to characterize the compressive strength as well as the water demand of each fine aggregate. Compression cubes were made for each mixture and tested at ages of 1 and 28 days. Before testing, the specimens were cured in lime-saturated water in storage tanks. The results were correlated with various aggregate characterization properties in order to illustrate trends in the data.

94 5.3.3 Drying Shrinkage The drying shrinkage was obtained in accordance with ASTM C 157-93, Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic-Cement Mortar and Concrete. Three prisms, 1 inch x 1 inch x 11 inches, were prepared for each mixture. The specimens were made and cured in the lime-saturated water for 3 days. After removal from the lime-saturated water, the specimens were stored in the drying room and comparator readings for each specimen were taken at the periods required by the standard test procedure.

5.4

Mixture Proportioning Two control variables were used in the mortar test program: fixed water-

cement ratio and fixed flow rate (workability) of mortar. The first variable was selected to investigate the effect of the sand on the properties of mortar at the same water-cement ratio, and the last one was chosen to evaluate the effect of the property change according to water demand. The compressive strength of concrete was simulated as 28 MPa (4000 psi) for this particular part of the study; hence, cement contents were targeted at a typical cement volume for this grade of concrete. From a recent concrete project by Calera, an optimal value of sand used in concrete was found to be 42 percent based on the total aggregate volume of concrete. The mortar proportion was

95 simulated from the concrete mixture proportions after removal of coarse aggregate [Hudson, personal communication]. Cement contents were set based on a control (250 kg/m3) and two increments of 10%. Six mixtures per sand were tested. Mixtures of fixed watercement ratio with low, medium, and high cement content were labeled as LF, MF, HF, respectively. Similarly low, medium, and high cement content mixtures with fixed flow were labeled as LV, MV, HV, respectively. The first three batches (LF, MF, HF) were made based on a fixed watercement ratio, 0.485, and the only difference was cement content, 250 kg/m3, 275 kg/m3, and 300 kg/m3, respectively. This served as a two-part comparison;

obviously the extra cement contents introduced strength changes as well as showing the effects of a lower sand percentage. The other three mixtures (LV, MV, HV), although the water-cement ratio was the same initially, had used a variable amount of water to achieve a flow of 110 5, and the resulting watercement ratio could change. Detailed mixture proportions are shown in Appendix C (Table C.1).

5.5

Test Results and Discussion

5.5.1 Flow Table 5.2 shows the average test results of mortar for three batches (LF, MF, and HF). As shown in the table, the flows of Pennsylvania and Virginia

96 limestone, Tennessee Dolomite and Pennsylvania sandstone had higher values. On the other hand, Missouri limestone, 66-Virginia Granite, Iowa Dolomite, and Virginia diabase had lower flows that might cause higher water demand. Specially, the reason that the as-received sample of Missouri limestone had lower flow may be related to the higher methylene blue value as well as higher micro fines contents. It was noted that some of the as-received samples had higher flow than those of product samples. Since the flow test is dynamic instead of static, micro fines content as well as particle shape affected the flow. The flow of mortar with fixed water-cement ratio depends on micro fines contents, particle shape, and MBV. Detailed flow test results are shown in Appendix C (Table C.2).

5.5.2 Water Demand The average water-cement ratios for three fixed-flow batches (LV, MV, HV) are shown in Table 5.2. As shown in the table, the water-cement ratios were inversely related to the flows, since low flow for fixed water-cement ratio represents high water demand for fixed flow. Detailed water demand is shown in Appendix C (Table C.1).

97 Table 5.2: Test Results of Mortar

Flow ID No. for W/C: 0.485 PA/LS/13-02/68 PA/LS/06-00/65 PA/LS/05-00/65 PA/LS/05-00/00 VA/GT/06-00/68 VA/GT/05-00/68 VA/GT/06-00/00 SD/QZ/19-02/68 SD/QZ/06-00/65 SD/QZ/05-00/00 SD/QZ/05-00/65 VA/DI/06-00/00 VA/DI/06-00/65 VA/DI/05-00/65 OK/DO/06-00/00 OK/DO/06-00/65 OK/DO/06-00/36 VA/LS/05-00/00 VA/LS/05-00/65 VA/LS/05-00/36 CT/BA/06-00/36 CT/BA/06-00/00 CT/BA/19-02/68 PA/SS/09-00/68 PA/SS/06-00/68 PA/SS/05-00/00 MO/LS/19-02/68 MO/LS/06-00/00 MO/LS/05-00/68 Natural Sand 127 129 125 122 74 106 65 104 93 114 85 64 45 93 80 92 101 136 121 133 85 99 105 108 124 116 63 16 90 143 W/C for Flow: 110 0.44 0.45 0.44 0.46 0.54 0.50 0.55 0.50 0.50 0.47 0.51 0.55 0.56 0.51 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.44 0.46 0.44 0.53 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.46 0.48 0.55 0.75 0.51 0.41 Compressive Strength at 28days (psi) W/C: 0.485 9100 8370 8350 8500 7570 8290 7200 9680 9730 8630 8350 9570 9450 8720 8900 9460 9020 9390 10370 9600 9510 8350 8800 9060 8930 8630 9100 6710 8380 7770 Flow: 110 9850 8930 9150 9020 6530 8130 6570 9230 9570 9340 9090 8000 7900 8200 7900 8800 8430 10410 11110 11140 8210 7180 8700 9090 9420 9070 7620 3870 7950 9420 Drying Shrinkage at 28 days (%) W/C: 0.485 0.085 0.091 0.089 0.082 0.105 0.094 0.109 0.072 0.076 0.066 0.076 0.096 0.110 0.097 0.086 0.094 0.088 0.076 0.078 0.068 0.092 0.083 0.083 0.078 0.078 0.080 0.082 0.142 0.090 0.072 Flow: 110 0.080 0.082 0.088 0.080 0.112 0.094 0.112 0.073 0.078 0.068 0.077 0.102 0.115 0.098 0.093 0.095 0.095 0.071 0.077 0.070 0.090 0.088 0.083 0.072 0.079 0.081 0.085 0.165 0.087 0.066

98 Table 5.2: Test Results of Mortar (Continued)

Flow ID No. for W/C: 0.485 VA/GT/13-02/68 VA/GT/06-00/68 VA/GT/06-00/00 MN/GT/06-00/68 MN/GT/05-00/68 MN/GT/06-00/00 CT/GT/19-02/65 CT/GT/06-00/00 CT/GT/05-00/36 WY/GT/19-02/65 WY/GT/06-00/00 WY/GT/05-00/65 TN/DO/13-02/68 TN/DO/06-00/00 TN/DO/06-00/65 IA/DO/25-02/68 IA/DO/06-06/68 IA/DO/05-00/00 IA/DO/05-00/68 AR/SS/06-00/68 AR/SS/06-00/00 74 28 82 80 114 105 93 88 115 90 101 80 130 131 120 47 31 106 29 76 80 W/C for Flow: 110 0.522 0.577 0.513 0.516 0.480 0.491 0.501 0.517 0.483 0.514 0.497 0.521 0.451 0.451 0.469 0.557 0.557 0.488 0.575 0.550 0.539 Compressive Strength at 28days (psi) W/C: 0.485 7880 5710 7920 7840 8450 8450 8480 7860 8380 9440 8720 9110 9490 8540 9210 9180 8860 8350 7920 8880 8890 Flow: 110 8100 6080 7930 7990 8570 8260 8250 7490 8500 9120 8280 8710 10280 9670 9890 8150 8210 8070 7510 7690 7770 Drying Shrinkage at 28 days (%) W/C: 0.485 0.0793 0.0828 0.0745 0.0702 0.0748 0.0628 0.0813 0.0787 0.0783 0.0835 0.0837 0.0897 0.0690 0.0580 0.0717 0.0780 0.0727 0.0702 0.0740 0.1058 0.0950 Flow: 110 0.0822 0.0885 0.0747 0.0712 0.0742 0.0627 0.0792 0.0845 0.0787 0.0850 0.0858 0.0933 0.0642 0.0628 0.0713 0.0780 0.0790 0.0705 0.0797 0.1073 0.0980

5.5.3 Compressive Strength The average values of 28-day compressive strength are shown in Table 5.2. Figures 5.1 through 5.17 show the test results of compressive strength for each

99 type of aggregate source in the form of compressive strength versus type of mixture. Test results of mixtures with sandstone, limestone, or quartzite show that they have high compressive strengths. The Virginia limestone used in this study showed consistent high compressive strength and good workability, even though the percentage of micro fines was as high as 13.3 percent. Mortar made with Missouri limestone MO/LS/06-00/00 had poor workability and the percentage of reduction in compressive strength with fixed water-cement ratio and fixed flow compared to Virginia limestone VA/LS/05-00/65 was 35 percent and 65 percent, respectively. It should be noted that the former had the highest MBV of 10.0, and the latter had the lowest MBV of 0.25. As shown in the Figure 5.2, the test results of Virginia granite show that they are consistent in low compressive strength, even when the cement content increases. For a fixed water-cement ratio, aggregates can be separated into three groups by comparing compressive strength versus cement content. The first

group, 70-VA/GT/06-00/00, 70-VA/GT/06-00/68, PA/LS/13-02/68, MO/LS/0600/00, MO/LS/19-02/68, 66-VA/GT/13-02/68, 66-VA/GT/06-00/68, MN/GT/0600/68, WY/GT/19-02/65, and IA/DO/05-00/68, has increasing compressive strength with increasing cement content.

100

12000 Compressive Strength at 28 days (psi)

10000

8000

PA/LS/13-02/68 PA/LS/06-00/65

6000

PA/LS/05-00/65 PA/LS/05-00/00

4000

2000

0 LF MF HF LV MV HV Type of Mixture

Figure 5.1: Compressive Strengths of Mortar of Pennsylvania Limestone

12000 Compressive Strength at 28 days (psi)

10000

8000

VA/GT/06-00/68 VA/GT/05-00/68 VA/GT/06-00/00

6000

4000

2000

0 LF MF HF LV MV HV Type of Mixture

Figure 5.2: Compressive Strengths of Mortar of Virginia Granite

101

12000 Compressive Strength at 28 days (psi)

10000

8000

SD/QZ/19-02/68 SD/QZ/06-00/65

6000

SD/QZ/05-00/00
4000

SD/QZ/05-00/65

2000

0 LF MF HF LV MV HV Type of Mixture

Figure 5.3: Compressive Strengths of Mortar of South Dakota Quartzite

12000 Compressive Strength at 28 days (psi)

10000

8000

VA/DI/06-00/00 VA/DI/06-00/65 VA/DI/05-00/65

6000

4000

2000

0 LF MF HF LV MV HV Type of Mixture

Figure 5.4: Compressive Strengths of Mortar of Virginia Diabase

102

12000 Compressive Strength at 28 days (psi)

10000

8000

6000

OK/DO/0600/00 OK/DO/0600/65 OK/DO/0600/36

4000

2000

0 LF MF HF LV MV HV Type of Mixture

Figure 5.5: Compressive Strengths of Mortar of Oklahoma Dolomite

12000 Compressive Strength at 28 days (psi0

10000

8000

VA/LS/05-00/00 VA/LS/05-00/65 VA/LS/05-00/36

6000

4000

2000

0 LF MF HF LV MV HV Type of Mixture

Figure 5.6: Compressive Strengths of Mortar of Virginia Limestone

103

12000 Compressive Strength at 28 days (psi)

10000

8000

CT/BA/06-00/36 CT/BA/06-00/00 CT/BA/19-02/68

6000

4000

2000

0 LF MF HF LV MV HV Type of Mixture

Figure 5.7: Compressive Strengths of Mortar of Connecticut Basalt

12000 Compressive Strength at 28 days (psi)

10000

8000

PA/SS/09-00/68 PA/SS/06-00/68 PA/SS/05-00/00

6000

4000

2000

0 LF MF HF LV MV HV Type of Mixture

Figure 5.8: Compressive Strengths of Mortar of Pennsylvania Sandstone

104

12000 Compressive Strength at 28 days (psi)

10000

8000

MO/LS/19-02/68 MO/LS/06-00/00 MO/LS/05-00/68

6000

4000

2000

0 LF MF HF LV MV HV Type of Mixture

Figure 5.9: Compressive Strengths of Mortar of Missouri Limestone

12000

Compressive Strength at 28 days (psi)

10000

8000

Natural Sand
6000

4000

2000

0 LF MF HF LV MV HV Type of Mixure

Figure 5.10: Compressive Strengths of Mortar of Natural Sand

105

12000 Compressive Strength at 28 days (psi)

10000

8000
VA/GT/13-02/68

6000

VA/GT/06-00/68 VA/GT/06-00/00

4000

2000

LF

MF

HF

LV

MV

HV

Type of Mixture

Figure 5.11: Compressive Strength of Mortar of Virginia Granite

12000
Compressive Strength at 28 days (psi)

10000 8000
MN/GT/06-00/68

6000 4000 2000 0 LF MF HF LV MV HV

Type of Mixture

MN/GT/05-00/68 MN/GT/06-00/00

Figure 5.12: Compressive Strength of Mortar of Minnesota Granite

106

12000
Compressive Strength at 28 days (psi)

10000 8000
CT/GT/19-02/65

6000 4000 2000 0 LF MF HF LV MV HV

Type of Mixture

CT/GT/06-00/00 CT/GT/05-00/36

Figure 5.13: Compressive Strength of Mortar of Connecticut Granite

12000
Compressive Strength at 28 days (psi)

10000 8000
WY/GT/19-02/65

6000 4000 2000 0 LF MF HF LV MV HV

Type of Mixture

WY/GT/06-00/00 WY/GT/05-00/65

Figure 5.14: Compressive Strength of Mortar of Wyoming Granite

107

12000
Compressive Strength at 28 days (psi)

10000 8000
TN/DO/13-02/68

6000 4000 2000 0 LF MF HF LV MV HV

Type of Mixture

TN/DO/06-00/00 TN/DO/06-00/65

Figure 5.15: Compressive Strength of Mortar of Tennessee Dolomite

12000
Compressive Strength at 28 days (psi)

10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 LF MF HF LV MV HV

Type of Mixture IA/DO/25-02/68 IA/DO/06-06/68 IA/DO/05-00/00 IA/DO/05-00/68

Figure 5.16: Compressive Strength of Mortar of Iowa Dolomite

108

12000
Compressive Strength at 28 days (psi)

10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 LF MF HF LV MV HV

Type of Mixture AR/SS/06-00/68 AR/SS/06-00/00

Figure 5.17: Compressive Strength of Mortar of Arkansas Sandstone The second group decreases in compressive strength when cement content increases, including CT/BA/06-00/00, PA/LS/05-00/65, VA/LS/05-00/00,

VA/LS/05-00/65, and SD/QZ/19-02/68. Compressive strengths of the aggregates, which do not show any correlation, belong to the third group that includes over two-thirds of the aggregates examined in this study. Although mixtures with fixed water-cement ratio and low cement content did not have good workability, their strengths are comparable to those made with natural sand except aggregates 70-VA/GT/06-00/00, 70-VA/GT/06-00/68, 66VA/GT/13-02/68, 66-VA/GT/06-00/68, MN/GT/06-00/68, CT/GT/06-00/68,

IA/DO/05-00/68, and MO/LS/06-00/00 which are all about 25% lower in

109 compressive strength except for 66-VA/GT/06-00/68 which is considerably less. As a result, if a chemical admixture is used to improve the workability, MFA with higher contents of micro fines can be acceptable for field performance. For fixed flow, it is observed that compressive strengths of mortar made with manufactured sands increase with increasing cement content, and mortars with natural sand show the same trend. Detailed compressive strength test results are shown in Appendix C (Table C.2).

5.5.4 Drying Shrinkage Drying shrinkage is the strain resulting from the loss of moisture from the specimen. The average values of 28-day drying shrinkage are shown in Table 5.2. Generally drying shrinkage strain increased with increasing cement content, but mixtures of aggregates PA/LS/06-00/65, MO/LS/06-00/00, AR/SS/06-00/68, and AR/SS/06-00/00 with a fixed flow show less shrinkage when cement content increased. Comparing the mixture with natural sand, Virginia granite, Connecticut basalt, Virginia diabase, Oklahoma dolomite, and Arkansas sandstone showed greater 28-day shrinkage strains in general, about 40 percent higher, while 28-day shrinkage strains of the other aggregates were about 15 percent higher, except for all the Tennessee dolomite and MN/GT/06-00/00 which actually proved to be lower. Aggregate MO/LS/06-00/00 shows the greatest difference from the natural sand, being nearly twice as much as the natural sand. It should be noted that the

110 MBV of those aggregates with higher shrinkage was greater than 1.25, and aggregate MO/LS/06-00/00 with a MBV of 10 had the highest drying shrinkage strain, which was twice that of natural sand mortar. Detailed drying shrinkage test results are shown in Appendix C (Table C.3).

5.6

Results of Other Mortar Testing Vulcan Materials Company performed a companion study on 70 aggregates

from four different sources and three types of rock. The tabulated results of this study can be found in Appendix D.

5.7

Summary After screening and performing aggregate characterization tests, mortar

tests were performed to investigate the effect of MFA on the mortar paste. Flow, compressive strength, and drying shrinkage were investigated in accordance with ASTM. The flows of Pennsylvania and Virginia limestone, Pennsylvania sandstone, and Tennessee dolomite were higher. On the other hand, Missouri limestone, Virginia diabase, 66-Virginia granite, and Iowa dolomite had lower flow that might cause higher water demand.

111 It should be noted that some of the as-received samples had higher flow than those of product samples. Since the flow test is dynamic instead of static, micro fines content as well as particle shape affected the flow rate. Hence, it is concluded that the flow of mortar with fixed water-cement ratio depends on micro fines content, particle shape, and methylene blue value. Test results of mixtures with sandstone, limestone, or quartzite show that they had high compressive strengths. It should be noted that they had low MBV (0.25 to 1.0). Although mixtures with fixed water-cement ratio and low cement content do not have good workability, their strengths are comparable to those made with natural sand except aggregates VA/GT/06-00/00, VA/GT/06-00/68, MO/LS/0600/00, 66-VA/GT/13-02/68, 66-VA/GT/06-00/68, MN/GT/06-00/68, CT/GT/0600/68, and IA/DO/05-00/68 which are about 25 percent lower in compressive strength except for 66-VA/GT/06-00/68 which is considerably less. As a result if a chemical admixture is used to improve the workability, MFA with higher contents of micro fines can be acceptable for field performance. Figures 5.18 and 5.19 show the comparison of compressive strength for the representative of each type of aggregate. Generally drying shrinkage strain increased with increasing cement content; however mixtures of aggregates PA/LS/06-00/65, MO/LS/06-00/00, AR/SS/06-00/68, and AR/SS/06-00/00 with a fixed flow rate showed less

112 shrinkage when cement content increased. Comparing the mixture with natural sand, Virginia granite, Connecticut basalt, Virginia diabase, Oklahoma dolomite Arkansas sandstone showed greater 28-day shrinkage strains in general, about 40 percent higher, while 28-day shrinkage strains of the other aggregates were about 15 percent higher, except for Tennessee dolomite and MN/GT/06-00/00 which showed less. Aggregate MO/LS/06-00/00 had the largest difference of all. It should be noted that the MBV of those aggregates with higher shrinkage was greater than 1.25, and aggregate MO/LS/06-00/00 with a MBV of 10 had the highest drying shrinkage strain, which was twice that of natural sand mortar. Figures 5.20 and 5.21 show the comparison of drying shrinkage for the representative type of each aggregate.

10000 9000 28-day Compressive Strength (psi) 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000
Nat DO(OK) LS(MO) QZ DI BA GT(MN) SS(PA) LS(PA) GT(70-VA) GT(66-VA) GT(WY) DO(TN) GT(CT) SS(AR) LS(VA) DO(IA)

Type of Aggregate

Figure 5.18: Twenty-eight-day Mortar Compressive Strength for Each Type of Aggregate (Fixed W/C)

113

12000

28-day Compressive Strength (psi)

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

Nat

LS(MO)

GT(MN)

QZ

BA

DI

GT(70-VA)

GT(66-VA)

GT(CT)

LS(PA)

LS(VA)

DO(TN)

DO(OK)

GT(WY)

SS(PA)

DO(IA)

Type of Aggregate

Figure 5.19: Twenty-eight-day Mortar Compressive Strength for Each Type of Aggregate (Fixed Flow) 114

SS(AR)

115
0.14

0.12

0.1

Drying Shrinkage (%)

0.08

LS(PA) GT(70-VA) QZ DI

0.06

DO(OK) LS(VA) BA SS(PA)

0.04

LS(MO) Natural GT(66-VA) GT(MN)

0.02

GT(CT) GT(WY) DO(TN) DO(IA)

0
7 14 28 56

SS(AR) 112

Time (days)

Figure 5.20: Drying Shrinkage of Mortar for Each Type of Aggregate (Fixed W/C)

116

0.14

0.12

0.1 Drying Shrinkage (%)

0.08
LS(PA) GT(70-VA) QZ

0.06

DI DO(OK) LS(VA) BA SS(PA) LS(MO) Natural GT(66-VA) GT(MN) GT(CT) GT(WY) DO(TN) DO(IA) SS(AR)

0.04

0.02

0
7 14 28 56 112

Time (days)

Figure 5.21: Drying Shrinkage of Mortar for Each Type of Aggregate (Fixed Flow)