1 / 26

Z.C. Grasley, D.A. Lange, A.J. Brinks, M.D. D’Ambrosia University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MODELING AUTOGENOUS SHRINKAGE OF CONCRETE ACCOUNTING FOR CREEP CAUSED BY AGGREGATE RESTRAINT. Z.C. Grasley, D.A. Lange, A.J. Brinks, M.D. D’Ambrosia University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Sponsors: PCA, NHI/FHWA, IDOT, CEAT. Why a composite model?.

bette
Télécharger la présentation

Z.C. Grasley, D.A. Lange, A.J. Brinks, M.D. D’Ambrosia University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MODELING AUTOGENOUS SHRINKAGE OF CONCRETE ACCOUNTING FOR CREEP CAUSED BY AGGREGATE RESTRAINT Z.C. Grasley, D.A. Lange, A.J. Brinks, M.D. D’Ambrosia University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Sponsors: PCA, NHI/FHWA, IDOT, CEAT

  2. Why a composite model? • Models that allow the prediction of concrete shrinkage as f(Sp, mech. properties) are valuable modeling tools • Predict the effect of segregation on shrinkage of SCC layers • Input for FEM model that considers differential drying shrinkage with depth • Bridge deck or pavement • Curling or cracking • While our model will be validated using autogenous shrinkage, should apply to drying also

  3. Many models have already been developed, but… • Existing models based on theory of elasticity • An example: Pickett’s model uses elasticity theory to predict concrete shrinkage S=S(E,Eg,, g,Sp,g) • Problem: cement paste is viscoelastic, so Pickett’s model tends to over-predict shrinkage as time increases because creep relaxes restraining stress • Solution: rework Pickett’s model using a viscoelastic constitutive theory rather than elastic Pickett, G., Effect of aggregate on shrinkage of concrete and hypothesis concerning shrinkage. American Concrete Institute -- Journal, 1956. 27(5): p. 581-590.

  4. Evidence of Pickett Problem Creep

  5. > Sviscoelastic Sdilution > Selastic Aggregate Shrinkage considering dilution only Shrinkage of viscoelastic material Shrinkage predicted by elastic model Paste Visualizing the effect of aggregate restraint

  6. qagg = qconc qconc qagg Physical model representation

  7. Conversion of Pickett’s model Elastic where Viscoelastic where • f(t) = loading function • = Poisson ratio of concrete • g = Poisson ratio of aggregate E = Young’s modulus of concrete Eg = Young’s modulus of aggregate J(t,t’) = viscoelastic compliance of concrete Sp = paste shrinkage g = aggregate volume fraction

  8. g(a,) Gel solidifying at time  Solidified gel Pore water a(t) da()  Accounting for aging Constitutive equation for aging viscoelastic material Solidification theory Bazant, Z.P., Viscoelasticity of Solidifying Porous Material - Concrete. J. of the Eng. Mech. Div., ASCE, 1977. 103(EM6): p. 1049-1067.

  9. Materials modeled

  10. Required model parameters • Elastic modulus • Paste autogenous shrinkage • Concrete autogenous shrinkage • Concrete creep • Aging function (elastic and creep) • Aggregate elastic properties

  11. Measuring shrinkage and creep

  12. Measured paste shrinkage w/cm = 0.38 w/cm = 0.33 w/cm =0.32

  13. Measured concrete shrinkage w/cm = 0.38 High paste content w/cm =0.32 w/cm = 0.33

  14. Kelvin Chain Determining creep function Mix-1

  15. Measuring elastic response

  16. Determination of Aging Function

  17. New model improves fit Model prediction of Mix-1 shrinkage

  18. Improvement again Model prediction of Mix-3 shrinkage

  19. Even better Does high paste content  better fit? Why? Less damage? Model prediction of Mix-2 shrinkage

  20. Higher g Higher likelihood of damage, nonlinearity of creep Reduction in shrinkage Tangential stress is function of b/c Paste Aggregate c b Measured shrinkage Damage/nonlinearity Predicted shrinkage – viscoelastic model Time

  21. Why not perfect fit? • Linear viscoelasticity is assumed • No damage such as microcracking is considered around aggregates • Dependence of J(t,t’) on g is ignored • Aging function determined from elastic tests • A time-independent, stress history independent Poisson’s ratio was assumed

  22. Current work • Importance of aggregate dependence • Solve model equations with J(t,t’) as f(g) • Use paste creep and elastic properties • Assumption of constant Poisson ratio • Solve model in terms of E(t,t’) and K(t,t’) (substitute for Poisson ratio) • Use new experimental methods to measure K • Compare to existing model predictions • Combine model with paste shrinkage prediction model • Account for nonlinearity and/or damage effects

  23. Summary • New model has been developed for predicting concrete shrinkage • Model is extension of Pickett’s model • Includes creep • Improves on Pickett’s elastic model • Creep is present as result of aggregate restraint • Model still over-predicts concrete autogenous shrinkage • Nonlinearity and damage • Increasing g in mixture design may reduce shrinkage not only by reducing paste content, but also by inducing stress-relaxing damage ~ additional creep

  24. Effect of creep on alpha Larger alpha = lower predicted shrinkage  better fit

  25. Evidence of tangential cracks around aggregates Bisschop, J., Drying shrinkage microcracking in cement-based materials. 2002, Delft University: Delft, The Netherlands.

More Related