Center for

By-Products

Utilization

DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION OF HIGH-

CARBON CCPs AND FGD BY-PRODUCTS IN

PERMEABLE ROADWAY BASE CONSTRUCTION

By Tarun R. Naik, Shiw S. Singh, and Rudolph N. Kraus

Report No. CBU-2000-29

Rep-406

September 2000

A Quarterly Report Submitted to CBRC Administration – Midwestern Region

Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics

College of Engineering and Applied Science

THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN – MILWAUKEE

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Item Page

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………..ii

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………...1

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………2

Literature Review………………………………………………………………………………..4

Open Graded Base Course……...………………………………………………………...4

Roller Compacted Concrete………….…………………………..……………………...12

Laboratory Investigations………………………………………………………………..….....22

Task 1…………………………………………………………………………………….22

Fine Aggregate…………………………………………………………………...22

Coarse Aggregate………………………………………………………………...22

Coal Combustion Products………………………………………………………22

Cement…………………………………………………………………………...24

Task 2 and Task 3………………………………………………………………………..24

References……………………………………………………………………………………….25

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Item Page

Table 1 - Untreated Permeable Subbase Gradations and Permeabilities…………...……………..6

Table 2 – Treated Permeable Subbase Gradations and Permeabilities…....………………………7

1

DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION OF HIGH-CARBON CCPs AND FGD BY-

PRODUCTS IN PERMEABLE ROADWAY BASE CONSTRUCTION

ABSTRACT

The major objective of this project is to develop and demonstrate permeable base course

materials using coal combustion products (CCPs) for highways, roadways, and airfield

pavements. Two types of CCPs, a high-carbon fly ash and a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) by-

product, are being evaluated for no-fines or low-fines concrete as a permeable base material.

This quarterly report deals with the work completed during the period from June 1, 2000 through

August 31, 2000. During this period, the work completed is related to Task 1, 2, and 3. A

literature search was conducted to build the knowledge-base to establish mixture proportions and

performance standards for the base course materials. The literature accumulated on permeable

base road pavements and roller compacted concrete (RCC) is briefly addressed in this report. All

constituents materials such as high-carbon fly ash, FGD by-product, cement, coarse aggregate,

and fine aggregate required for manufacture of the base course materials have been obtained.

These materials are being tested and evaluated for physical, chemical, and mineralogical

properties. Testing of coarse and fine aggregates, cement, and FGD by-products has been

completed. Most of the remaining testing of the constituent materials is expected to be

completed by the end of September 2000. Based on the data derived from the literature search

and the measured properties of the constituent materials, mixture proportions for the permeable

base course materials are being finalized; and laboratory evaluation of concrete mixtures is being

started.

2

INTRODUCTION

Presence of excess water in the pavement structure is known to be the primary cause of

pavement distress. Extended exposure to water can lead to pumping, D-cracking, faulting, frost

action, shrinkage, cracking, and potholes [1]. Out of these parameters, pumping is known to be

the most dominating mechanism of pavement distress. The water that infiltrates through the

pavement is trapped within the pavement structure when draining capabilities of the pavement

base is low. When high pressure is applied to these pavements from heavy traffic loads,

pumping occurs in the presence of water. This causes erosion of the base because fines as the

water is pumped out. Consequently, a loss in pavement support occurs, leading to early failure of

pavement. This can be avoided by using free-draining pavement base [1-15].

With a view to meet current and future EPA air quality standards, utilities are utilizing

supplemental flue gas treatments to reduce emissions. These treatments either alter the quality

of the coal combustion by-products, or generate another type of "waste" material. Two

processes typically used are flue gas desulfurization (FGD) to reduce SOx emissions and low-

NOx burners to reduce NOx emissions. FGD by-products are high sulfite and/or sulfate by-

products, and low-NOx burners generate high-carbon CCPs. Approximately 18 million tons of

FGD by-products were generated in 1998 in the USA with a utilization rate of less than ten

percent. Consequently, most of FGD by-products are landfilled at high disposal costs and

potential future environmental liabilities to the producer. To avoid these, there is a need to

develop beneficial uses of these by-products. This project was undertaken to develop high-

volume applications of these CCPs in manufacture of permeable base materials for highways,

roadways, and airfield pavements. Use of high-carbon or variable carbon CCPs and FGD by-

3

products in permeable base course is expected to utilize significant quantities of these by-

products. It will also help to reduce the cost of installing permeable base materials for

pavement, which will lead to increased use of such permeable bases for highways, roadways,

and airfield pavements. Reducing the cost of permeable base materials is expected to expand its

use in many other types of pavement construction with increased pavement life and increased

utilization rate of CCPs and FGD by-products.

To meet the objectives of the project, the entire work is organized in two major phases,

each one year in duration. These two phases have been subdivided into the following tasks:

Phase 1 - Year 1: Laboratory Activities

Task 1: Acquisition, Characterization, and Evaluation of Materials

Task 2: Development of Base Course Mixture Proportions

Task 3: Testing and Evaluations

Task 4: CCPs and FGD By-Product Utilization Criteria

and Base Course Specifications

Task 5: Base Course Design Criteria and Construction Guidelines

Task 6: Reports

Phase 2: Field Demonstration and Technology Transfer

Task 7: Field Demonstrations, Testing, and Evaluation

Task 8: Demonstration/Technology Transfer

Task 9: Optimization of Construction Specifications

Task 10: Reports

This quarterly report contains information pertaining to Tasks 1 through 3 for the period from

4

June 1, 2000 through August 31, 2000. Task 1 involved acquiring various base course

constituent materials, analyzing the samples for their physical, chemical, and mineralogical

properties, characterizing the materials, and selecting the appropriate quality and quantity of

these materials. Task 2 focuses on developing two sets of six mixtures (each set consists of two

different base course mixtures) to allow for greater flexibility for potential uses for road and

highway construction. Task 3 involves developing a more complete test program to arrive at

specifications for materials for production of base course materials containing high-carbon CCPs

and FGD by-products. The work completed during this quarter was divided into two parts. The

first part deals with literature review pertaining to the base course materials, while the second

part deals with experimental work completed and/or in progress pertaining to characterization

and evaluation of constituent materials.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A literature search was completed to establish a knowledge-base for mixture proportions

and performance standards for the base course construction materials to be developed in this

project. Two types of roller-compacted base course materials, open-graded base course and

dense-graded base course materials, will be developed in this project. The literature collected in

this project is divided into two parts. The first part deals with open-graded base course while

second part deals with roller compacted concrete which will be the bases for dense-graded base-

course materials.

Open-Graded Base Course--Permeable bases are divided into two classes: treated and

untreated. A treated permeable base employs a binder, which would typically consist of either

5

cement 200-300 lbs/yd3

(119-178 kg/m3) or asphalt (2 to 5% by total weight of the asphaltic

concrete). An untreated base contains more smaller size particles in order to provide stability

through aggregate interlock. A permeable base must be capable of maintaining both permeability

and stability. In order to have improved stability, an untreated sub-base course should contain

100% crushed aggregate [2]. Although aggregate gradations vary among users, the two most

commonly used gradations are AASHTO NO. 57 and NO. 67 (Tables 1 and 2). The coefficient

of permeability for treated base depends upon several factors such as aggregate gradation and

binder content. Due to the coarse gradation and small amount of binder used in manufacture of

treated base, they are by design quite porous and permeable. The coefficient of permeability for

untreated permeable base is normally lower when compared to treated permeable base materials

due to greater amount of fines in the untreated based (Tables 1 and 2).

A typical permeable base system is composed of three major elements: permeable base,

separator or filter layer, and edge drain system [24]. A typical cement-treated permeable base is

composed of 86% aggregate, 10% cement, and 4% water [4]. Information on design,

construction, and material requirements are available in the literature [2, 4, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17].

Although the thickness of permeable bases generally varies between 3 to 6 in. (75 to 150 mm), a

4 in. (100 mm) thickness of the permeable base is most commonly used [13-15].

In order to help solve drainage problems, open-graded permeable materials have been

used in portland cement pavements since the beginning of pavement construction [5]. However,

to handle heavy traffic loads, the trend of using dense-graded materials dominated during the

middle of this century, which resulted in decreased use of the permeable materials [5]. Recently,

a renewed interest in the use of permeable materials for pavement construction has occurred

during the last two decades, beginning with European road construction. In a survey conducted

6

TABLE 1- Untreated Permeable Subbase Gradations and Permeabilities [3,15]

Sieve Size

Percent Passing

IA

KY

MI

MN

NJ

PA

WI

50 mm

(2 in.)

38 mm

(1½ in.)

25 mm

(1 in.)

19 mm

(¾ in.)

12.7 mm

(½ in.)

9.5 mm

(3/8 in.)

No. 4

No. 8

No. 10

No. 16

No. 30

No. 40

No. 50

No. 200

--

--

100

--

--

--

--

10.35

--

--

--

--

0-15

0.6

--

100

95-100

--

25-60

--

0-10

0-5

--

--

--

--

--

0.2

--

100

--

--

0-90

--

0.8

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

100

65-100

--

35-70

20-45

--

8-25

--

--

2-10

--

0-3

—

100

95-100

--

60-80

--

40-55

5-25

--

0-8

--

--

0.5

--

100

--

--

52-100

--

35-65

8-40

--

--

0-12

0-8

--

--

0-5

--

--

100

90-100

--

20-55

0-10

0-5

--

--

--

--

--

--

7

Coefficient of

Permeability m/s

(ft per day)

18x10-4

(500)

706x10-4

(20,000)

35x10-4

(1000)

7x10-4

(200)

71x10-4

(2000)

35x10-4

(1000)

635x10-4

(18,000)

TABLE 2 - Treated Permeable Subbase Gradations and Permeabilities [3]

Sieve Size

Percent Passing

No. 57

AC/PC

Stabilized

California

WI

PC

Stabilized

New Jersey

AC

Stabilized

AC

Stabilized

PC

Stabilized

38 mm

(1½ in.)

25 mm

(1 in.)

19 mm

(¾ in.)

12.7 mm

(½ in.)

9.5 mm

(3/8 in.)

No. 4

No. 8

No. 10

No. 16

No. 200

100

95-100

--

25-60

--

0-10

0-5

--

--

0-2

--

100

90-100

35-65

20-45

0-10

0-5

--

--

0-2

100

86-100

X ± 22

--

X ± 22

0-18

0-7

--

--

--

--

--

90-100

--

20-55

0-10

0-5

0-5

--

--

--

100

95-100

85-100

60-90

15-25

2-10

--

2-5

*

8

Coefficient of

Permeability m/s

(ft/day)

706x10-4

(20,000)

529x10-4

(15,000)

141x10-4

(4,000)

350x10-4

(10,000)

35x10-4

(1,000)

AC = Asphalt; PC = Portland cement

"X‖is the gradation that the contractor proposes to furnish

for the specific sieve size.

* Add 2% mineral filler.

8

by the National Asphalt Institute, 30 states indicated use or planned use of asphalt-treated

permeable base materials under pavement [13]. A number of investigations [10,11] have

supported the use of open-graded permeable bases for efficient drainage. Crovetti and Dempsey

[5] showed that various parameters such as cross slope, longitudinal grade, and drainage layer

width and thickness can influence the permeability performance of open-graded permeable

materials (OGPM).

Several designs of pavement drainage [26-31], including permeable open-graded base

(POGB) material, prefabricated edge drains, trenches wrapped with a geotextile and backfilled

with a permeable material, or trenches filled with permeable materials, etc, have been recently

studied. Hagen and Cochran [28] evaluated drainage characteristics of standard dense-graded

base, two dense-graded base sections incorporating transverse drains placed under transverse

joints, and permeable asphalt-stabilized base (PASB). Their results showed that the PASB

drained the most water within 2 hr of a rainfall, while providing the driest pavement foundation

and the least early pavement distress. Fleckenstein and Allen [29] presented the results of studies

completed during 1991 through 1995 pertaining to pavement edge drainage in Kentucky. The

results indicated that properly installed edge drainage system would add significant service life to

pavement structure. The open graded base material drainage system is commonly used due to its

drainage effectiveness [5]. Therefore, in their project this system was selected to act as

permeable base for providing efficient pavement drainage.

In 1988, the Federal Highway Administration [18] surveyed ten different states, which

had installed permeable base pavements. Of these, the most experienced states were: California,

Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The remaining six were Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota,

North Carolina, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. These states developed their design data largely

9

based upon the information of the four most experienced states. Out of the 10 states surveyed,

seven states used untreated permeable base and the remaining three (California, North Carolina,

and West Virginia) used treated permeable base. Five of the seven states using untreated

permeable base had dense-graded materials with reduced amounts of fines. The two states,

Wisconsin and Kentucky, employed larger AASHTO NO. 57 or an equivalent size, which

resulted in higher permeability of the base.

Grogan [16] reported that subsurface pavement layers are virtually impermeable in the

case of dense-graded materials. When these layers become saturated, they remain saturated for

the majority of the pavement life. These saturated layers cause pumping, erosion, subgrade

weakening, and freezing/thawing damage. Use of properly designed and constructed permeable

bases reduces or practically eliminates these problems thus improving pavement performance.

The improved performance translates into dollar savings through increased life and reduced

maintenance requirements for the pavement. Based on investigations [17,18] in California, a

minimum life increase was estimated to be 33% for asphaltic concrete pavement and 50% for

portland cement concrete pavements incorporating permeable bases compared to undrained

pavements. Hall [19] reported that factors such as cement content, truck traffic, sublayer

stability, segregation, and surface irregularities are important in affecting performance of the

permeable material.

Numerous investigations conducted by several state agencies were summarized by Munn

[20]. Two eight-year-old pavements on permeable bases in California did not exhibit any

cracking, whereas corresponding undrained pavements showed 18% and 47% cracking. Non-

destructive testing of permeable base pavements in Iowa revealed a greater support relative to

undrained pavements. The increased support is equivalent to a thickness of 75 to 125 mm of

10

additional pavement. In Michigan, permeable base test sections built in 1975 did not show any

faulting or cracking and had less D-cracking compared to control sections of bituminous and

dense-graded sections. In Minnesota, a jointed reinforced concrete pavement on permeable base

built in 1983 experienced only one mid-panel crack in its 59 panels, while undrained sections

adjacent to either end showed 50% mid-panel cracks. Performances of Pennsylvania’s

permeable base sections built in 1979-80 were rated much better than that of dense-graded

aggregate sections. In Pennsylvania, a permeable base between portland cement concrete

pavement and the dense-graded aggregate subbase was standardized in 1983. Wisconsin [20]

estimates that the use of a cement-stabilized base would add 25% more service to concrete

pavements. Recent nondestructive testing in Iowa [21] has shown excellent performance of

permeable base pavements. New Jersey [15] found similar rutting for permeable base pavements

constructed in 1979-1980 having either thicker or thinner sections. In addition, there was less

deflection, no faulting or pumping, and reduced frost penetration on concrete pavements. In

1990, permeable base PCC pavement became standard in nine different states [4].

Kozeliski [22] reported successful application of open-graded cement treated base material in the

construction of a parking lot for an office building, a driveway of a home, and a ground cover of

a refinery. Kuennen [23] described construction of a high-quality, high-durability, drainable

PCC pavement incorporating 18% fly ash of total cementitious materials.

Naik and Ramme [24] demonstrated the use of an off-spec. fly ash (10% loss on ignition)

in construction of open-graded permeable base material in 1994. This fly ash was produced in

electric generation units equipped with FGD system at the Wisconsin Electric’s Port Washington

Power Plant. These units employ baking soda to remove SO2 from the flue gas, which causes

formation of sodium sulfate, and thus the fly ash produced contain sodium sulfate. A test section

11

was constructed to determine if the long-term expansive of the sulfate containing fly ash would

cause any expansive problems in the open-graded base course and thus lift the pavement. It was

expected that the expansive hydration product crystals could be accommodated in the voids

provided in the open-graded base. The mixture proportion for the open-graded base course was

composed of 160 lbs/yd3 (95 kg/m

3) cement, 125 lbs/yd

3 (74 kg/m

3) fly ash, 81 lbs/yd

3 (48

kg/m3) water, and 2600 lbs/yd

3 (1543 kg/m

3) 19 mm coarse aggregate. The water to cementitious

materials ratio was at about 0.28. A concrete pavement made with 50% fly ash was constructed

on top of this open-graded base course. To date (2000) there have been no heaving of this

concrete pavement anywhere on the entire length of the pavement. Visual observation has

revealed no major cracks or other pavement distress during the past six years of service.

Long et al. [30] evaluated fatigue performance of drained and undrained pavements using

laboratory testing and fatigue models. The drained pavement included an asphalt-treated

permeable base and the undrained pavement was conventional asphalt concrete pavement. The

fatigue life predicted by the fatigue, models were higher for the drained pavement compared to

the undrained pavement. This was probably due to the strength contribution by the ATPB layer

to the pavement.

Based on the information presented above, it is concluded that adequate drainage is

required in producing durable pavements, especially when it is subjected to heavy traffic loads.

Pumping is reported to be one of the primary causes of pavement distress and generally occurs in

undrained pavement. A properly designed and constructed permeable base eliminates pumping,

faulting, and cracking. An effective permeable base pavement is composed of three components:

an open-graded permeable base, a separator layer, and an edge drainage system. The base is

designed to have adequate permeability and stability. It is estimated that the use of a permeable

12

base would add to pavement service life by 33% and 50%, for asphaltic and portland cement

concrete pavements, respectively.

Roller-Compacted Concrete--Roller-compacted concrete (RCC) is being used all around the

world for the construction of dams. Use of RCC for pavements is of relatively new and growing

interest. Roller-compacted concrete for pavement is a relatively stiff mixture of aggregates,

cementitious materials, and water, which is generally placed by asphalt pavers and compacted by

vibratory rollers [33-35]. RCC pavements are appropriate for applications requiring a strong,

hard, wearing surface that can handle low-speed traffic [3]. RCCP is placed without forms,

finishing, and surface texturing. RCCP does not require joints, dowels, reinforcing steel, or

formwork. Therefore, relatively large quantities of RCCP can be placed rapidly with minimal

labor and equipment, resulting in speedy completion of tightly scheduled pavements [34].

Because of the low water to cementitious materials ratio in a RCCP mixture, it typically exhibits

strengths equivalent to or greater then, conventional concrete [34, 36, 37]. The surface quality

and smoothness of RCC pavements are relatively inferior to conventional pavements. As a result,

RCC has primarily been used in heavy duty or industrial pavements such as log-yards, port

facilities, tank parking areas, warehouses, etc. where minor surface deficiencies are not an issue

[38]. More recent applications of RCC include road subbase, plant, warehouse, public highway,

truck lane inlays, overlays, intersection inlays, arterial roads, bridge decks, liner for

evaporation/drying beds, sludge drying basins, etc. [39-46].

Due to favorable economics of RCC in dam construction, road contractors adapted the

technique to their needs in the 1980s. RCCP mixtures contain approximately three times as

much cementitious material as RCC mixtures for dams [35, 41]. From the current (1998)

200,000 tons of portland cement used, it is projected that RCCP has potential to consume 10

13

million tons of portland cement in a decade. RCC pavements are stronger and more durable than

asphalt pavement [43]. It will not rut or shove from high axle loads and will not soften from heat

generated by hot summer sun or materials stored on RCC floors. RCC resists degradation from

materials such as diesel fuel [45].

Initial cost savings of 15 to 40 percent can be expected if RCC is specified as a pavement

alternative for projects requiring heavy wheel loading compared to conventional paving concrete

[47]. RCC is also emerging as a cost-effective, high-performance base course for conventional

highway and street pavements. A thin layer of asphalt topping (50 mm) normally covers the

surface to ensure a smooth riding at street and highway speeds [45]. Critically saturated non air-

entrained RCCP may exhibit poor resistance to freezing and thawing cycling. Non air-entrained

RCCP, when not critically saturated, have shown adequate performance in field conditions in

cold climates for over 10 years [33, 34, 47, 73]. To ensure long-term freezing and thawing

durability, it is desirable to entrain air in RCC. Due to drier consistency, however, it is difficult

to entrain air in RCC mixtures. Recently, AEA have been used to entrain air in RCC mixtures

with limited success [33, 35].

Mechanical properties and durability of RCC can be influenced by several factors including

properties of constituent materials, mixture proportioning, and production technology [48-71].

RCC is primarily composed of cementitious materials, fine, and coarse aggregates, generally

without chemical admixtures. The cementitious materials generally include portland cement, fly

ash, or other pozzolanic materials such as blast furnace slag, volcanic ash, rice husk ash, wood

ash, etc. Additional chemical admixtures such as normal-range water-reducing admixture

(WRA), high-range water-reducing admixture (HRWRA), and air entraining admixtures (AEA)

have been used sometimes to enhance performance of RCC [33, 47]. A typical mixture for

14

roller-compacted concrete pavement contains about 10 to 15 percent cementitious materials by

mass of total materials. Use of fly ash as a replacement of cement increases the amount of fine

materials in the mixture. It also decreases water requirement, improves consistency, and

contributes to strength development due to improved microstructure of the material resulting

from pozzolanic reactions of fly ash [36, 50]. A high fines content in RCC increases its

mechanical strength and improves the surface texture. Further increase in fine content occurs

when fly ash is used as a replacement of sand or as a fine aggregate [24, 44]. In the past, both

ASTM Class C and Class F fly ashes have been used in RCCP [53]. Applications of blast

furnace slag and phospho-gypsum tend to increase time of setting of RCC mixtures resulting in

increased time available between lifts without formation of cold joints [33, 54].

Silica fume together with HRWRA has been shown to improve density, strength, and frost

resistance of RCC [41]. Use of silica fume is recommended in RCC where compressive strength

requirement is very high (greater than 60 MPa). RCC mixtures made with silica fume have

shown compressive strength exceeding about 65 MPa at the age of 28 days [33]. Generally, RCC

mixtures are proportioned for compressive strengths ranging between 25 to 35 MPa at the age of

28 days [40]. With a view to avoid segregation during handling and placing of RCC and to

provide a closed and relatively smooth surface texture, the maximum aggregate size is often

limited to 19 mm [43]. However, for construction involving multi-layers, aggregate with a

maximum size of 40 mm can be used for the bottommost layer [43].

Compared to conventional concrete mixtures, larger amounts of fine aggregates are added

to RCC to avoid segregation during handling and placing [34, 43, 50, 51]. Non-plastic fines

passing a No. 200 sieve are specified in the range of 5 to 10% to improve the smoothness of the

top surface of RCCP [33-35]. The increased quantity of the fine fraction increases water demand

15

to maintain the desired level of the concrete consistency within a workable range. However, the

mechanical strength of RCC can increase with the amount of fines in the mixtures because of the

low water to cementitious materials ratio used and high compaction achieved.

Difficulties are encountered in entraining air in RCC mixture using an AEA due to its low

water content [34, 50, 52, 55]. For an AEA to be effective, sufficient amount of water is needed

to form a film around air bubbles. However, water content of RCC mixtures is generally very

low to entrain air bubbles [33].

To entrain air in RCC mixture, AEA is premixed with the cement paste (cementitious

materials and water), a small portion of the coarse aggregate, and a superplasticizer before adding

the sand [33]. However, premixing operations require concrete to be mixed in a stationary plant

while most RCC producers use continuous plug-mill mixers for a large-scale production of RCC

[33]. Recently, researchers [33, 64] have shown successful air entrainment in RCC mixtures

using AEA in laboratory as well as in field trials using a plug-mill mixer. WRA and small

dosages of HRWRA have been successfully used to improve the homogeneity of the cement

paste and to increase consistency of the RCC. Set-retarding admixtures can also be used to delay

the pavement compaction and rolling process without the formation of cold joints [33].

However, use of admixtures are many times minimized or avoided to decrease the cost of RCCP.

RCC mixtures are proportioned at low water to cementitious material(s) ratio ranging

from 0.20 to 0.40. RCC mixtures must be dry enough to support the weight of a vibratory roller,

yet wet enough to permit adequate distribution of the paste throughout the mass during the

mixing and compaction operations [34, 35, 43, 50, 63]. Although there are numerous methods to

proportion RCC mixtures, none of them is yet widely accepted. These methods can be classified

in the following three major groups [33, 34, 62]: (1) mixture proportioning techniques for RCC

16

to meet specified limits of consistency; (2) mixture proportioning technique using soil

compaction concept; and (3) mixture proportioning method based on the solid suspension model.

In the first approach, a number of trial mortar mixtures varying in water to cementitious

material(s) and sand/cementitious material(s) ratios are proportioned and cast to meet a specified

consistency. Strength and density of each mixture are measured. From the test results,

water/cementitious material(s) ratio is selected to meet specified strength and corresponding

sand/cementitious material(s). After determining these ratios, the proportion of coarse and fine

aggregates is adjusted to meet the specified consistency. In the second technique, first the

proportion of coarse and fine aggregates is fixed based on recommended gradation curves. Then

for the fixed aggregate proportion, a number of concrete mixtures varying in cementitious

materials content are prepared. For each cementitious material content, concrete mixtures are

prepared with differing water contents. Then optimum water content corresponding to maximum

density is determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557 [33]. The compressive strength is

measured on mixtures with optimum moisture content. The mixture meeting compressive

strength with the minimum cementitious materials content is selected. The third method employs

a theoretical model, which optimizes mixture proportion with high packing density [33, 62].

This method is primarily based on the fact that optimum mixture proportion for RCC is obtained

when paste content is just enough to fill the inter-particle spaces. This approach requires

minimum laboratory work. However, substantial computational effort is required to obtain

optimum mixture proportion [62].

Test results have indicated that mechanical properties such as compressive strength,

modulus of elasticity, and fatigue strength of RCC are similar to that of conventional paving

concrete [34, 37, 48]. Therefore, the design of RCC pavement thickness follows techniques

17

similar to that used for pavement thickness of rigid conventional paving concrete. Designs of

pavement thickness and construction techniques for RCCP have been presented in several

publications [34, 37, 38]. The subgrade and/or base courses are prepared to provide sufficient

support to permit full compaction of the RCC throughout the entire thickness of the pavement.

An open-graded granular base course is often specified in order to assure drainage and avoid

saturation of RCC pavements. More recently, no-fines concrete is also being specified by many

DOT as a preferable base course for both rigid and flexible pavements. Naik and Ramme [24]

reviewed information on design and performance of roller-compacted permeable base courses for

conventional pavements. This type base course is composed of a no-fines permeable base, a

separator layer, and an edge drainage system. Each of these components should be designed to

avoid pumping. Permeable bases are divided into two classes: treated and untreated. A treated

permeable base employs a binder. An untreated subbase contains more smaller size particles in

order to provide stability through aggregate interlock. A permeable base must be capable of

maintaining both permeability and stability. In order to have improved stability, an untreated

subbase should contain 100% crushed aggregate. Most investigations [24] have indicated

improved performance of drained pavements over undrained pavements. It was reported by Naik

and Ramme [24] that the use of an open-graded permeable base would increase service life by

33% and 50% for conventional asphalt concrete pavement and portland cement concrete

pavement, respectively, over undrained pavements. These advantages are also considered

applicable for RCCP. Thus the use of properly designed permeable base course can reduce the

chances of saturating non air-entrained RCCP which in turn will reduce or avoid the possible

damage resulting from freezing and thawing environment in cold climates.

In addition to other parameters, degree of compaction plays a significant role in affecting

18

the strength, permeability, and durability of RCC [50]. Past researchers [50] have shown that

laboratory specimens compacted to 98% of theoretical air-free density attained flexural and

flexural fatigue strength equivalent to that for conventional paving concrete. Mechanical

properties of RCC were determined using beam and core specimens from in-place RCCP in the

past [37, 73]. The results showed compressive strength ranging between 3,500-5,000 psi (24-35

MPa) and flexural strength ranging from 500-700 psi (3.4-4.8 MPa). For high-strength RCC, the

28-day strength of 5,800-10,000 psi (40-70 MPa) have been reported [62]. The permeability of

concrete is directly related to its durability. The permeability dictates the rates at which water or

aggressive agents (seawater, acid rain, salt solutions, etc.) and gases (CO2, SO3, etc.) that can

penetrate into the materials. Such agents when they get in to the concrete can cause expansive

reactions or other deterioration in the concrete leading to reduced durability of the concrete.

Thus, entry of these agents should be minimized or avoided to improve concrete durability by

decreasing its permeability. Permeability of RCC was measured using core specimens of 50-mm

diameter and 4 in. (100-mm) long at varying water to cementitious materials ratio, amount of

silica fume, cement fineness, and curing technique [69]. The results indicated higher

permeability of RCC compared to conventional mass concrete for dams. This was attributed to

presence of interconnected voids and hollow interface aggregate-paste boundaries. The

coefficient of permeability was found to decrease to some extent when silica fume and finer

cement were used. A study [64] showed that 20 to 40 percent cement replacement with low-

calcium fly ash increased sulfate resistance of RCC. RCC mixtures with 10-20% fine sand

replacement with Class F fly ash, attained higher sulfate resistance and compressive strength

compared to the control. Use of high-calcium bottom ash as a fine aggregate offered excellent

strength, stiffness, and deformation property [34]. Another study [65] showed that durable RCC

19

could be produced using lignite dry bottom ash as fine aggregate. The results showed increased

resistance to sulfate attack, freezing and thawing actions, and wear resistance with increases in

cementitious materials and/or coarse aggregate content. The use of circulating fluidized bed

combustion ashes (fly ash and bottom ash) in RCC type of mixtures in combination with

chemical additives without portland cement has been reported [70]. Compressive strength of

these pastes was significantly influenced by water to paste ratio, the amount of bottom ash, and

method of compaction.

Dosage of AEA in workable RCC mixtures has been reported to be about two to four times

that required for conventional concrete [68]. The workable mixtures were defined as those that

can consolidate under vibration within 30 seconds without application of a surcharge weight.

High resistance to freezing and thawing actions requires the use of optimum mixture proportion

that can be compacted to a high compaction level with air entrainment [68]. Field observations

[33, 38, 45, 46, 62, 73] have shown adequate performance of RCCP in cold climates.

Controversial opinions have been expressed about freezing and thawing and salt scaling

resistance of RCCP [62]. This was mainly due to the fact that specimens obtained from actual

pavements performed poorly in freezing and thawing durability tests in accordance with ASTM

C 666, Procedure A. As a result, freezing and thawing durability of RCC has been the subject of

some investigations [34, 63, 73]. Although air entrainment in a RCC mixture is difficult to

achieve due to its drier consistency and low-paste content, researchers [33, 34, 62, 63] have

attempted to entrain air in RCC mixtures in laboratory and field conditions with limited success.

Gagne [62] indicated that an acceptable air-void system can be produced in RCC for strength

levels ranging from 5,000-7,200 psi (35-50 MPa) using AEA dosages of 5 to 10 times that used

for conventional paving concrete. However, for high performance concrete (greater than 50

20

MPa), an acceptable air-void system in RCC is not guaranteed even at a very high dosage of

AEA.

In addition to an air-void system, other parameters also influence the freezing and thawing

durability of RCC. A dense concrete system should be produced at a low water to cementitious

materials ratio, and high density RCCP should be constructed with such concrete with a well

draining base under the pavement that will not experience freezing and thawing deterioration [38,

51]. Some RCC mixtures without entrained air become durable against freezing and thawing due

primarily to their relatively impermeable microstructures and a lack of bleed water channels (i.e.,

a lack of capillary pores), which provide the path for water to critically saturate the paste [57].

Pigeon et al. [59] proportioned high-volume fly ash roller-compacted concrete mixtures

with fixed fly ash to cementitious materials ratio of 0.63. Both air-entrained and non air-

entrained mixtures at two levels of cementitious materials contents (12 and 15 percent) were

produced under laboratory conditions. The freezing and thawing resistance of air-entrained

concrete was found to be very good. Whereas the non air-entrained concrete performed poorly in

freezing and thawing tests in accordance with ASTM C 666, Procedure A [59]. The use of silica

fume in combinations with superplasticizer and air-entraining admixtures improved freezing and

thawing resistance of RCC mixture [41]. However, the effect of AEA alone did not exhibit

positive effects on the freezing and thawing resistance of RCC mixtures [41]. In a study [60], as

expected, higher concrete densities of RCC led to substantial improvement of its resistance to

salt scaling. The results also indicated positive effects of air entrainment on salt scaling

resistance of RCC. Non-air-entrained RCC with 28-day compressive strengths of 7,400-8,500

psi (51-59 MPa) experienced moderate to severe scaling at 35 cycles while air-entrained RCC

with 28-day compressive strengths of 4,640-7,680 psi (32-53 MPa) showed only slight to

21

moderate scaling after 80 cycles in accordance with ASTM C 672 [60]. Tests need to be

developed to provide better correlation between field and laboratory performance of RCC for

both deicers scaling and freezing and thawing [73]. RCC projects with surfaces exposed to

freezing and thawing environment are performing extremely well in field. Existing laboratory

test procedures tend to indicate otherwise [50, 73].

Recently, Ribeiro and Almeida [72] reported an RCC mixture which meets the strength

and durability requirement for high performance concrete (HPC). More recently, Naik et al. [73]

described the construction experience grained in two pavement projects (Project I and Project II)

recently completed in Wisconsin. Project I dealt with performance of conventional high-volume

fly ash (HVFA) concrete pavement having a roller-compacted, no-fines permeable base course

containing fly ash obtained from SO2 control technology, and Project II deals with RCC

pavement containing 30% ASTM Class C fly ash. Visual observations for the projects showed

very good to excellent field performance of RCC pavement containing 30 % Class C fly ash.

Saw cut beam test specimens, and drilled cores from the RCC pavement were obtained.

Laboratory testing of specimens derived from the pavements showed excellent results for

conventional HVFA pavement, and "satisfactory" performance of the RCCP. However,

specimens from the RCCP performed poorly in laboratory freezing and thawing testing according

to ASTM C 666, Procedure A.

LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS

Task 1

22

For Task 1, all base course constituent materials such as CCPs, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate,

and cement have been acquired. These materials are being tested and evaluated for physical,

chemical, and mineralogical properties using ASTM or other applicable test methods as

described below.

Fine Aggregate--One source of concrete sand was acquired from a local concrete producer.

Physical properties of the sand were determined per ASTM C 33 requirements for the following:

unit weight (ASTM C 29), specific gravity and absorption (ASTM C 128), fineness (ASTM C

136), material finer than #200 sieve (ASTM C 117), and organic impurities (ASTM C 40). It

met all the ASTM C 33 requirements for fine aggregate.

Coarse Aggregate--One source of coarse aggregate was acquired from a local concrete producer.

Physical properties of the aggregate were determined per ASTM C 33 requirements for the

following: unit weight (ASTM C 29), specific gravity and absorption (ASTM C 128), and

organic impurities (ASTM C 40). It met all the ASTM C 33 requirements for coarse aggregate.

Coal Combustion Products (CCPs)— Two sources of CCPs have been obtained for the project.

A high-carbon/sulfate-bearing ash and an FGD by-product has been obtained. Physical

properties of the fly ash samples are being determined in accordance with ASTM C 311. The ash

samples are being characterized for physical properties, chemical properties including oxides,

basic chemical elements, and mineralogy. The following physical properties: fineness (ASTM C

430), strength activity index with cement (ASTM C 109), water requirement (ASTM C 109),

autoclave expansion (ASTM C 151), and specific gravity (ASTM C 188) are being determined.

The ash samples are being analyzed for basic chemical elements using Instrumental

Neutron Activation Analysis. The Neutron Activation Analysis method exposes the sample to

neutrons, which results in the activation of many elements. This activation consists of radiation

23

of various elements. For the ash sample, gamma ray emissions were detected. Many different

elements may be detected simultaneously based on the gamma ray energies and half-lives.

The ash samples are also being analyzed to determine the type and amount of minerals

present. Two grams of each test sample were ground in a power-driven mortar and pestle unit for

55 minutes with ethyl alcohol. The alcohol was then evaporated for mineralogical analysis of the

test sample. The diffraction mount used was a specially made back loading holder, in which the

sample was poured against a matte surface disk and secured in place with a second smaller disk

mounted into the holder through an "O" ring seal. The matte surface disk was then removed.

The samples were weighed while loading so that each mount contained the same amount of the

sample powder. The sample was mounted on a diffractometer (a Nicolet I2 automated unit).

The parameters used for producing the scan (diffraction pattern) were optimized for quantitative

analysis of the minerals present. The data file that was produced during the scan was graphically

converted on a computer screen and plotted. The plot was searched for crystalline phases present

using an automated Hanawalt search, by looking through a list of expected phases for the sample

using first and second strongest lines and by using computer overlays of the plot using standard

phases from the JCPDS file to test each phase. The overlay plot was generated from the test

sample and a standard sample. The presence or absence of a phase was verified using the

standard. After the phases were tabulated, the diffraction data file was converted to run on the

"SQ" program, which uses the phases assigned, and calculates a match between the observed

pattern and a pattern generated from the assigned phases. Various parameters were adjusted to

obtain this match. The scale factors assigned to each phase were converted into weight

percentage of each phase.

24

A second pattern was also run in which ZnO was added in the amount of 50 percent. In

the test sample containing amorphous material, the percentage of ZnO measured by "SQ" was

higher than 50 percent. The magnitude of this change was used to calculate the amount of

amorphous material in the sample.

Most of the testing of the FGD by-product has been completed.

Cement—Type I cement was acquired from one source. Its physical and chemical properties

were determined in accordance with the applicable ASTM test methods. It was tested per ASTM

C 150 requirements for air content (ASTM C 185), fineness (ASTM C 204), autoclave expansion

(ASTM C 151), compressive strength, time of setting (ASTM C 191), and specific gravity

(ASTM C 188).

Task 2 and Task 3--For Task 2, mixture proportions for the base course materials are being

finalized. For Task 3, based on the literature survey completed, a more complete test program is

being developed. The test program will generate appropriate data for optimizing mixture

proportions for the base course materials incorporating high-carbon ash and FGD by-products.

For the project, fresh and hardened properties of the base course materials will be measured. The

fresh concrete properties such as consistency, temperature, time of set, density, etc., and hardened

concrete properties such as density, compressive strength, tensile strength, flexural strength,

sulfate resistance, and freezing and thawing resistance will be determined. Both Tasks 2 and 3

are scheduled to continue from six to 13 months, respectively.

REFERENCES

1. Cedergren, H. R., ―America’s Pavement: World’s Longest Bathtubs,‖ Civil Engineering,

American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, September 1994, pp. 56-58.

2. Baumgardner, R. H., ―Overview of Permeable Bases,‖ Materials Performance and

25

Prevention of Deficiencies and Failures, 92 Materials Engineering Congress, ASCE, New

York, 1992, pp. 275-287.

3. Portland Cement Association (PCA), ―Concrete Paving Technology,‖ PCA, 1991, 22

pages.

4. Kozeliski, F. A., ―Permeable Bases Help Solve Pavement Drainage Problems,‖ Concrete

Construction, September 1992, pp. 660-662.

5. Crovetti, J. A., and Dempsey, B. J., ―Hydraulic Requirements of Permeable Bases,‖

Transportation Record No. 1425, TRB, National Research Council, Washington DC,

1993, pp. 28-36.

6. Cedergren, H. R., ―Why All Important Pavement Should Be Well Drained,‖ Presented at

67th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, 1988.

7. Cook, M., and Dykins, S., ―Treated Permeable Base Offers Drainage, Stability,‖ Roads

and Bridges, May 1991, pp. 46-49.

8. Mathis, D. M., ―Permeable Bases Prolong Pavements, Studies Show,‖ Roads and

Bridges, Vol. 28, No. 5, May 1990, pp. 33-35.

9. Flynn L., ―Open-Graded Base May Lengthen Pavement Life,‖ Roads and Bridges,

September 1991, pp. 35-42.

10. Strohm, W. E., Nettles, E. M., and Calhoun, Jr., C. C., ―Study of Drainage Characteristics

of Base Course Materials,‖ Highway Research Record 203, HRB, National Research

Council, Washington DC, 1967, pp. 8-28.

11. Moynahan, Jr., T. J., and Steinberg, Y. M., ―Effects on Highway Subdrainage of

Gradation and Direction of Flow Within a Densely Graded Base Course Material,‖

Transportation Research Record No. 497, TRB, National Research Council, Washington

DC, 1974, pp. 50-59.

12. Ahmed, Z., and White, T. D., ―Methodology for Inspection of Collector Systems,‖

Transportation Research Record No. 1425, TRB, National Research Council, Washington

DC, 1993, pp. 37-53.

13. Zhou, H., Moore, L., Huddleston, J., and Grower, Jr., ―Determination of Free-Draining

Base Material Properties,‖ Transportation Research Record No. 1425, TRB, National

Research Council, 1993, pp. 54-63.

14. Mathis, D. M., ―Design and Construction of Permeable Base Pavement,‖ FHWA, U.S.

Department of Transportation, 1989.

26

15. Mathis, D. M., ―Permeable Base Design and Construction,‖ Proceedings of the Fourth

International Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation, Purdue

University, 1989, pp. 663-669.

16. Grogan, W. B., "User's Guide: Subsurface Drainage for Military Pavements," USAE

Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, A Final Technical Report submitted to

US Army Corps of Engineers, 1992, pp. 1to A23.

17. Forsyth, R. A., Wells, G. K., and Woodstrom, J. H., ―The Road to Drained Pavements,‖

Civil Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, March 1989, pp. 66-69.

18. Munn, W. D., ―Behind the Shift to Permeable Bases,‖ Highway and Heavy Construction,

July 1990, pp. 38-41.

19. Hall, M., "Cement Stabilized Open Graded Base: Strength, Testing, and Field

Performance vs. Cement Content," Wisconsin Concrete Pavement Association,

November 1990, pp.1 to B3.

20. Hall, M. J., ―Cement Stabilized Permeable Bases Drain Water, Add Life to Pavements,‖

Roads and Bridges, September 1994, pp. 32-33.

21. Brown, D., ―Highway Drainage Systems,‖ Roads and Bridges, February 1996, pp. 34, 40-

41.

22. Kozeliski, F. A., ―Open-Graded Base as a Parking Lot Pavement,‖ Presented at the ACI

1996 Spring Convention, Denver, Colorado, March 15, 1996, 14 pages.

23. Kuennen, T., ―Open-Graded Drain Layer Underlies Thick PCC,‖ Roads and Bridges, May

1993, pp. 28-29.

24. Naik, T. R. and Ramme, B. R., ―Roller–Compacted No-finess Concrete for Road Base

Course,‖ Proceedings of the Third CANMET/ACI International Symposium on Advances

in Concrete Technology, New Zealand, August 25-27, 1997, pp. 201-220.

25. Fleckenstein, L. J., and Allen, D. L., ―Field and Laboratory Comparison of Pavement

Edge Drains in Kentucky,‖ Transportation Research Record No. 1425, TRB, Nation

Research Council, Nation Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 1-10.

26. Wells, G. K., and Nokes, W. A., ―Performance Evaluation of Retrofit Edge Drain

Projects,‖ Transportation Research Record No. 1425, TRB, Nation Research Council,

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 11-17.

27. Ford, G. R., and Eliason, B. E., ―Comparison of Compaction Methods in Narrow

27

Subsurface Drainage Trenches,‖ Transportation Research Record No. 1425, TRB,

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 18-27.

28. Ahmed, Z., and White, T. D., ―Estimating Permeability of Untreated Roadway Bases,‖

Transportation Research Record No. 1519, TRB, Nation Research Council, National

Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 19-27.

28. Hagen, M. G., and Cochran, G. R., ―Comparison of Pavement Drainage Systems,‖

Transportation Research Record No. 1519, TRB, Nation Research Council, National

Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 1-10.

29. Fleckenstein, L. J., and Allen, D. L., ―Evaluation of Pavement Edge Drains and Their

Effect on Pavement Performance,‖ Transportation Research Record No. 1519, TRB,

Nation Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 28-35.

30. Long, F., Harvey, J., Scheffy, C., and Monismith, C. L., ―Prediction of Pavement Fatigue

for California Department of Transportation Accelerated Pavement Testing Program

Drained and Undrained Test Sections,‖ Transportation Research Record No. 1540, TRB,

Nation Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 105-

114.

31. Raymond, G. P., and Bathurst, R. J., ―Facilitating Cold Climate Pavement Drainage

Using Geosynthetics,‖ Proceedings of the ASTM Special Technical Publication of the

Symposium on Testing and Performance of Geosynthetics in Subsurface Drainage,

Seattle, WA, June 29 1999, pp. 52-63.

67. Raymond, G. P., and Bathurst, R. J., and Hajek, J., ―Evaluation and Suggested

Improvements to Highway Edge Drains Incorporating Geotextiles,‖ Geotextiles and

Geomembraines, Vol.18, No. 1, Elsevier Science Ltd, Exeter, England, U.K., 2000, pp.

23-45.

68. Marchand, J., Gagne, R., Ouellet, E., and Lepage, S., ―Mixture Proportioning of Roller

Compacted Concrete—A Review,‖ Advances in Concrete Technology, V. M. Malhotra,

Editor, ACI Special Publication, SP-171, Proceedings of the Third CANMET/ACI

International Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, 1997, pp. 457-486.

69. State-of-the-Art Report on Roller-Compacted Concrete Pavements,‖ ACI 325.10R-95,

Manual of Concrete Practice, Vol. 2, 1996, 31 pages.

70. Palmer, W. D., ―Roller Compacted Concrete Shows Paving Potential,‖ Roads & Bridges,

Sept. 1987, pp. 40-43.

36. Brendel, G. F., and Kelly, J. M., ―Fly ash in Roller Compacted Concrete Pavement,‖

Energy in the 90's, Proceedings of the ASCE Energy Division Specialty Conference on

Energy, March 10-13, 1991, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 333-338.

28

67. PCA, ―Structural Design of Roller-Compacted Concrete for Industrial Pavements,‖

Concrete Information, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1987, 8 pages.

38. Rollings, R. S., ―Design of Roller Compacted Concrete Pavements,‖ Proceedings of the

Roller Compacted Concrete II, ASCE, New York, NY, 1988, pp. 454-466.

67. Brett, D. M., ―RCC Pavements in Tasmania, Australia,‖ Proceedings of the Roller

Compacted Concrete II, ASCE, New York, NY, 1988, pp. 369-379.

40. Serne, R. A., ―Trends in the Use of Roller Compacted Concrete Pavements in Canada,‖

Canadian Portland Cement Association, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, pp. 1-26.

67. Rindal, D. B., and Horrigmoe, G., ―High-Quality Roller Compacted Concrete

Pavements,‖ Utilization of High-Strength Concrete, Vol. 2, I. Holand, and E Sellevold,

Editors, Norwegian Concrete Association, Oslo, Norway, 1993, pp. 913-920.

68. Jofre, C., Fernandez, R., Josa, A., and Molina, F., ―Spanish Experience with RCC

Pavements,‖ Proceedings of the Roller Compacted Concrete II, ASCE, New York, NY,

1988, pp. 467-483.

69. ENR, ―Roller Compacted Concrete Solves Warehouse Problems,‖ Concrete Today, pp.

C-59.

70. Munn, W. D., ―Roller Compacted Concrete Paves Factory Roads,‖ Concrete

Pavement, 3 pages.

71. Prusinski, J., ―Roller-Compacted Concrete Carries a Heavy Load,‖ Roads & Bridges,

July 1997, pp. 68-69.

72. Schweizer, E., and Raba, G. W., ―Roller Compacted Concrete with Marginal

Aggregates,‖ Proceedings of the Roller Compacted Concrete II, ASCE, New York, NY,

1988, pp. 419-428.

47. US Army Corps of Engineers, ―Roller-Compacted Concrete,‖ Engineer Manual # EM

1110-2-2006, Washington, D.C., February 1, 1992, pp. 1-1 to E-37.

48 Larson, J. L., "Roller-Compacted Concrete Pavement Design Practices for Intermodal

Freight Terminals at the Port of Tacoma," State-of-the-art Report 4, Facing the Challenge

- The lntermodal Terminal of the Future, Transportation Research Board, National

Research Council, 1986, pp. 22- 29.

49. Hess, 1. R., "RCC Storage Pads at Tooele Army Depot, Utah," Proceedings of the Roller

Compacted Concrete 11, ASCE, New York, NY, 1988, pp. 394-409.

29

50. ACT Committee 309, "Compaction of Roller-Compacted Concrete, " ACT 309.5R-XX -

final draft 6, 1998, 56 pages.

51. "Standard Practice for Concrete Pavements," Departments of the Army and the Air Force

Technical Manual, Army TM 5-822-7, Air Force AFM 88- 6, Chapter 8, Appendix D,

Department of Army and the Air Force, August 1987, pp. D-1 to D-15.

52. Liu, T. C., "Performance of Roller Compacted Concrete - Corps of Engineers'

Experience," ACI Special Publication SP-126, Durability of Concrete, Second

International CANMET/ACI Conference, Vol. 11, 1991, pp. 155-167.

67. Ragan, S. A., "Proportioning RCC Pavement Mixtures," Proceedings of the Roller

Compacted Concrete II, ASCE, New York, NY, 1988, pp. 380- 393.

54. Chikada, T., and Matsushita, H., "Properties of roller compacted concrete using portland

blast furnace slag cement," Journal of the Society of Materials Science, Japan/Zairyo,

Vol. 40, No. 456, Sep 1991, pp. 1228- 1234.

55. Marchand, J., Boisvert, L., Tremblay, S., Maltais, J., and Pigeon, M., "Air entrainment in

No-Slump Mixes," ACI Concrete International, Vol. 20, No. 4, Apr 1998, pp. 38-44.

56. Piggott, R. W., and Serne, R. A., "Roller Compacted Concrete-A Permanent Pavement

for Today and the Future," Second CANMET/ACI International Symposium on Advances

in Concrete Technology, Supplementary Papers, Las Vegas, NV, 1995, pp. 115-128.

57. Dolen, T. P., "Freeze-Thaw Durability of Roller-Compacted Concrete," 1996 Spring

Convention, ACI, Denver, Colorado, March 14-19, 1996, pp. 1-6.

58. Pittman, D. W., "RCC Pavement Construction and Quality Control, Proceedings of the

Roller Compacted Concrete II, ASCE, New York, NY, 1988, pp. 438-451.

59. Pigeon, M., and Malhotra, V. M., "Frost Resistance of Roller-Compacted High-Volume

Fly Ash Concrete," Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 4, ASCE,

November 1995, pp. 208-21 1.

60. RCC Newsletter, Vol. 10, No. 1, Fall 1994, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 4

pages.

61. Tayabji, S. D., and Okamoto, P. A., "Engineering Properties of Roller- Compacted

Concrete," Transportation Record No. 1136, Transportation Research Board,

Washington, D.C., January 1987, pp. 33-45.

62. Gagne, Richard, "Proportioning for Non-Air-Entrained RCCP" ACI Concrete

International, May 1999, pp. 37-41.

30

63. Withrow, H., ―Compaction Parameters of Roller Compacted Concrete,‖ Proceedings of

The Roller Compacted Concrete II, ASCE, New York, 1988, pp. 123-135.

64. Reagan, S. A., Pittman, D. W., and Grogan, W. P., ―An Investigation of the Frost

Resistance of Air-Entrained and Nonair-Entrained Roller-Compacted Concrete (RCC) for

Pavement Applications," Technical Report No. GL- 90-18, Final Report, US Army Corps

of Engineers, Washington, D. C., 1990, pp. 1-1 to B-36.

65. Ghafoori, N and Zhang, Z., "Sulfate Resistance of Roller Compacted concrete," ACI

Materials Journal, Vol. 95, August 1995, 347-355.

66. Ghafoori, N., and Cai, Z., ―Laboratory-Made Roller Compacted Concretes Containing

Dry Bottom Ash: Part I-Mechanical Properties, " ACI Materials, Journal, Vol. 95, No. 2,

1995, pp. 121-130.

67. Ghafoori, N., and Cai, Z., " Laboratory-Made Roller Compacted Concretes Containing

Dry Bottom Ash: Part 11-Mechanical Properties," ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 95, No. 2,

1995, pp. 244-251.

68. Cannon, R. W., "Air-Entrained Roller Compact Concrete," ACI Concrete International,

Vol. 15, No. 5. May 1993, pp. 49-54.

69. Pigeon, M., and Marchand, J. "Frost Resistance of Roller-Compacted Concrete," ACI

Concrete International," Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 7, 1996, pp. 22-26.

70. Banthia, N., Pigeon, M., Marchand, J., and Biosvert, J., ―Permeability of Roller

Compacted Concrete," Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering' Vol. 4, No. 4, 1992, pp

27-40.

71. Bland, A. E., Kissel, R. K., and Ross, G. G., "Utilization of CFBC Ashes in Roller

Compacted Concrete Applications," Proceedings of the 1lth International Conference on

Fluidized Bed Combustion, ASME, New York, USA, Vol. 2, April 21-24, 1991, pp. 857-

863.

72. Ribeiro, A. C. B., and Almeida, I. R., ―Study on High Performance Roller Compacted

Concrete,‖ Materials and Structures, RILEM, Paris, France, N0. 33, July 2000, pp. 398-

402.

73. Naik, T. R., Chun, Y.-M., Kraus, R. N., Pennock, L.-N. C., and Ramme, B. W.,

―Durability of Roller-Compacted HVFA Concrete Pavements,‖ Presented and published

at the Fifth CANMET/ACI International Conference on Durability of Concrete, in

Barcelona, Spain, June 4-9, 2000, pp. 867-882.