<%BANNER%>

Evaluation of Concrete Mixtures Containing RAP for Use in Concrete Pavements

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044624/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluation of Concrete Mixtures Containing RAP for Use in Concrete Pavements
Physical Description: 1 online resource (227 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Hossiney, Nabil Jalall
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: concrete -- feacons -- gradation -- rap -- strength -- stress -- toughness
Civil and Coastal Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Civil Engineering thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This study evaluated the feasibility of using concrete containing recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) in concrete pavement application.Four different RAPs were selected from different locations in Florida.Concrete mixtures containing 0%, 20%, 40%, 70%, and 100% RAP were produced inthe laboratory. The mechanical properties, thermal properties, and aggregate gradation of concrete mixtures containing RAP were evaluated in this study.Results of the laboratory testing program indicate that compressive strength,modulus of elasticity, flexural strength and splitting tensile strength decreases as the percentage of RAP increases. The reduction in flexural strength is lower than the corresponding reduction in compressive strength and splitting tensile strength. The coefficient of thermal expansion and drying shrinkage increases as the percentage of RAP increases. The results of the stress-strain property of concrete containing RAP indicate that the failure strain increases as the percentage of RAP increases. For the concrete mixtures with RAP, the combined aggregate gradation improved when the RAP was combined with #57 aggregate and silica sand. Using the measured properties, analysis was performed using FEACONS (Finite Element Analysis of CONcrete Slabs) to determine the maximum stresses in a typical concrete pavement under critical temperature and load conditions. The results of the analysis show that the maximum stresses in pavement decreases as the RAP content of the mix increases,due to decrease in the elastic modulus. Though the flexural strength of the concrete with RAP was lower than that of the conventional concrete, the computed stress to strength ratio for some of the RAP concrete was lower than that for the conventional concrete. This indicates that a RAP concrete can have a potentially better performance than a conventional concrete when used in concrete pavement slabs. A recommended method for designing concrete with RAP for pavement application was developed as the result of this study.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Nabil Jalall Hossiney.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Tia, Mang.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044624:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044624/00001

Material Information

Title: Evaluation of Concrete Mixtures Containing RAP for Use in Concrete Pavements
Physical Description: 1 online resource (227 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Hossiney, Nabil Jalall
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: concrete -- feacons -- gradation -- rap -- strength -- stress -- toughness
Civil and Coastal Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Civil Engineering thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This study evaluated the feasibility of using concrete containing recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) in concrete pavement application.Four different RAPs were selected from different locations in Florida.Concrete mixtures containing 0%, 20%, 40%, 70%, and 100% RAP were produced inthe laboratory. The mechanical properties, thermal properties, and aggregate gradation of concrete mixtures containing RAP were evaluated in this study.Results of the laboratory testing program indicate that compressive strength,modulus of elasticity, flexural strength and splitting tensile strength decreases as the percentage of RAP increases. The reduction in flexural strength is lower than the corresponding reduction in compressive strength and splitting tensile strength. The coefficient of thermal expansion and drying shrinkage increases as the percentage of RAP increases. The results of the stress-strain property of concrete containing RAP indicate that the failure strain increases as the percentage of RAP increases. For the concrete mixtures with RAP, the combined aggregate gradation improved when the RAP was combined with #57 aggregate and silica sand. Using the measured properties, analysis was performed using FEACONS (Finite Element Analysis of CONcrete Slabs) to determine the maximum stresses in a typical concrete pavement under critical temperature and load conditions. The results of the analysis show that the maximum stresses in pavement decreases as the RAP content of the mix increases,due to decrease in the elastic modulus. Though the flexural strength of the concrete with RAP was lower than that of the conventional concrete, the computed stress to strength ratio for some of the RAP concrete was lower than that for the conventional concrete. This indicates that a RAP concrete can have a potentially better performance than a conventional concrete when used in concrete pavement slabs. A recommended method for designing concrete with RAP for pavement application was developed as the result of this study.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Nabil Jalall Hossiney.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Tia, Mang.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044624:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EVALUATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES CONTAINING RAP FOR USE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENTS By NABIL HOSSINEY A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TH E DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Nabil Hossiney

PAGE 3

3 To my family and friends for their constant support and love

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my immense gratification to my supervisory committee c hair, Prof. Mang Tia, for continuously guiding and supporting me throughout the research study at the University of Florida. Appreciation is also extended to my committee members, Dr. Reynaldo Roque, Dr. Fazil T. Najafi and Dr. Larry Muszynski for their he lp and advice I am also thankful to Florida Department of Transportation [FDOT] for sponsoring th e research that made it possible to complete I am grateful to all FDOT office personnel, Michael Bergin, Charles Ishee, Richard DeLorenzo Harvey Deford, Pat rick Carlton and Joseph Fitzgerald for their help and support for this research project Gratitude is als o conveyed to the st aff of c ivil e ng ineering department especially Nancy Been and all other staff members I am also thankful for Chen Yu, Yu M in Su, Yaming, Sun Chao and other students who supported this research study. I would like to express my deep appreciation to all my friends at University of Florida, as well as my friends at Gainesville for the kind support and love. Finally I am thankful to my m om dad, my wife and all the family members for understanding and helping me throughout my time during the research at the University of Florida.

PAGE 5

5 TA BLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 12 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 17 1 BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ................................ .................... 19 1.1 Problem Statement ................................ ................................ ........................... 19 1.2 Hypothesis of Research ................................ ................................ .................... 19 1.3 Research Objectives ................................ ................................ ......................... 19 1.4 Scope of the Resea rch ................................ ................................ ..................... 20 1.5 Research Approach ................................ ................................ .......................... 20 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 22 2.1 Characte rization of Aggregate Gradation in Concrete ................................ ...... 22 2.1.1 Maximum Density Method ................................ ................................ ....... 22 2.1.2 Fineness Modulus ................................ ................................ ................... 23 2.1.3 Surface Area and Particle Interface Method ................................ ............ 24 2.1.4 Coarseness Factor ................................ ................................ .................. 25 2.1.5 Individ ual Percent Retained ................................ ................................ ..... 27 2.1.6 0.45 Power Chart ................................ ................................ .................... 29 2.2 Effect of Aggregate Gradation on Concrete Properties ................................ ..... 31 2.3 Properties of Recycled Asphalt Pavement ................................ ........................ 33 2.4 Concrete Properties Containing Recycled Asphalt Pavement .......................... 35 3 MATERIALS AND EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM ................................ ................... 41 3.1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 41 3.2 Selection of Materials ................................ ................................ ........................ 41 3.3 Material Properties ................................ ................................ ............................ 42 3.3.1 Cement ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 42 3.3.2 Fine Aggregate ................................ ................................ ........................ 43 3.3.3 Coarse Aggregate ................................ ................................ ................... 45 3.3.4 Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) ................................ ......................... 46 3.4 Concrete Mix Proportions ................................ ................................ ................. 50 4 EVALUATION OF AGGREGATE GRADATIONS OF CONCRETE CONTAINING RAP ................................ ................................ ................................ 54 4.1 Combined Aggregate Gradation ................................ ................................ ....... 54

PAGE 6

6 4.2 Evaluation of Aggregate Gradations ................................ ................................ 54 4.2.1 Coarseness Factor of Combined Aggregate ................................ ........... 56 4.2.2 Individual Percentage Retained of Combined Aggregate ........................ 59 4.2.3 0.45 Power Chart of Combined Aggregate ................................ .............. 64 4.3 Sum mary of Findings ................................ ................................ ........................ 69 5 CONCRETE PRODUTION AND TEST METHODS ................................ ................ 70 5.1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 70 5.2 Fabrication and Curing of Concrete Specimen ................................ ................. 70 5.2.1 Concrete Preparation ................................ ................................ .............. 71 5.2.2 Specimen Preparation ................................ ................................ ............. 71 5.3 Tests on Fresh Concrete ................................ ................................ .................. 74 5.4 Tests on Hardened Concrete ................................ ................................ ............ 76 5.4.1 C ompressive Strength Test ................................ ................................ ..... 76 ................................ ............ 77 5.4.3 Flexural Strength Test ................................ ................................ ............. 79 5.4.4 Splitting Tensile Strength Test ................................ ................................ 82 5.4.5 Drying Shrinkage Test ................................ ................................ ............. 83 5.4.6 Coefficie nt of Thermal Expansion Test ................................ .................... 84 6 CONCRETE TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ................................ ..................... 87 6.1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 87 6.2 Results of Fresh Concrete Properties ................................ ............................... 87 6.3 Analysis of Strength Test Results ................................ ................................ ..... 89 6.3.1 Compressive St rength Test Results ................................ ........................ 89 6.3.2 Modulus of Elasticity Test Results ................................ ........................... 94 ................................ ................................ ... 95 6.3.4 Flexural Strength Test Results ................................ .............................. 101 6.3.5 Modulus of Toughness Test Results ................................ ..................... 106 6.3.6 S plitting Tensile Strength Test Results ................................ .................. 109 6.3.7 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Test Results ................................ ..... 114 6.3.8 Drying Shrinkage Test Res ults ................................ .............................. 120 6.4 Relationship among the Concrete Properties ................................ ................. 126 6.4.1 Relationship between Compressive Strength and Flexural Strength ..... 126 6.4.2 Relationship between Compressive Strength and Modulus of Elasticity 127 6.4.3 Relationship between Compressive Strength and Splitting Tensile Strength ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 129 6.4.4 Relationship between Splitting Tensile Strength and Flexural Strength 130 6.5 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ ...................... 131 7 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PERFORMANCE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT SLABS ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 132 7.1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 132 7.2 Analysis Using FEACONS IV Program ................................ ........................... 132

PAGE 7

7 7.3 Analysis Using Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide ..................... 134 7.4 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ ...................... 142 8 DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA FOR RAP CONCRETE ................................ ..... 143 Development of Stress Strength Ratio Cha rts ................................ ...................... 143 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ..................... 149 9.1 Findings from This Study ................................ ................................ ................ 149 9.1.1 Mechanical and Thermal Properties of Concrete Containing RAP ........ 149 9.1.2 Combined Aggregate Gradation of Concrete Containing RAP .............. 149 9.1.3 Stress Analysis of Concrete Containing RAP ................................ ........ 150 9.2 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................ ............................... 151 APPENDIX A STRENG TH TEST DATA ................................ ................................ ..................... 152 B STRESS STRAIN PLOT OF RAP CONCRETE ................................ ................... 213 C MEPDG INPUT DATA ................................ ................................ .......................... 218 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 223 BIOGRAPHICAL SHETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 227

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Det ails of the RAP material selected for this research study .............................. 41 3 2 Physical and chemical properties of Portland cement ................................ ........ 42 3 3 Specif ic gravity and water absorption of fine aggregate ................................ ..... 43 3 4 Gradation of fine aggre gate#1 ................................ ................................ ............ 43 3 5 Gradation of fine aggre gate#2 ................................ ................................ ............ 44 3 6 Specific gravity and water absorption of coarse aggregate ................................ 45 3 7 Gradation of coarse aggre gate#1 ................................ ................................ ....... 45 3 8 Gradation of coarse aggre gate#2 ................................ ................................ ....... 45 3 9 Properties of recovered asphalt binder from RAP ................................ .............. 47 3 10 Specific gravity and water absorption of fine RAP ................................ .............. 48 3 11 Specific gravity and water absorption of coarse RAP ................................ ......... 48 3 12 Gradation of fine RAP ................................ ................................ ......................... 48 3 13 Gradation of coarse RAP ................................ ................................ .................... 48 3 14 Concrete mixtures containing RAP to be evaluated ................................ ........... 52 3 15 Mix proportions of concrete mixtures used in this research study ...................... 53 4 1 Combined gradation of fine aggregate with various percentage of RAP ............ 55 4 2 Combined gradation of coarse aggregate with various percentage of RAP ....... 55 5 1 Standard tests on fresh and hardened concrete ................................ ................. 70 5 2 Fresh and hardened concrete tests run per batch of concrete ........................... 75 6 1 Fresh concrete properties of the mixtures evaluated in this resear ch study ....... 88 6 2 Compressive strength of concrete mixtures evaluated ................................ ....... 90 6 3 Modulus of Elasticity of concrete mixtures evaluated ................................ ......... 95 6 4 ................................ .................. 99

PAGE 9

9 6 5 Flexural Strength of concrete mixtures evaluated ................................ ............. 10 2 6 6 Flexural toughness of concrete containing Recycled asphalt Pavement .......... 107 6 7 Splitting Tensile Strength of concrete containing Recycled asphalt P avement 110 6 8 Actual Coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete containing Recycled Asphalt Pavement ................................ ................................ ............................ 115 6 9 Adjusted coeffici ent of thermal expansion of concrete containing Recycled Asphalt Pavement ................................ ................................ ............................ 116 6 10 Drying shrinkage strain of concrete containing recycled asphalt pavement after air curing ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 121 6 11 Drying shrinkage strain of concrete containing recycled asphalt pavement after moisture curing ................................ ................................ ......................... 122 7 1 Performance criteria used in the MEPDG model ................................ .............. 134 7 2 Results of Critical Stress Analysis Using Concrete Properties at 7 Days Curing ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 135 7 3 Results of Critical Stress A nalysis Using Concrete Properties at 14 Days Curing ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 136 7 4 Results of Critical Stress Analysis Using Concrete Properties at 28 Days Curing ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 137 7 5 Results of Critical Stress Analysis Using Concrete Properties at 90 Days Curing ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 138 7 6 Traffic information used in the model ................................ ................................ 140 7 7 Predicted terminal IRI from MEPDG of pavements using concrete containing RAP ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 141 7 8 Predicted mean terminal joint faulting from MEPDG of pavements using concrete containi ng RAP ................................ ................................ .................. 141 7 9 Predicted terminal transverse cracking from MEPDG of pavement using concrete containing RAP ................................ ................................ .................. 141 8 1 Stress analysis for concrete mixtures with a coefficient of thermal expansion of 4.5 10 6 / F ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 145 8 2 Stress analysis for concrete mixtures with a coefficient of thermal expansion of 5.0 10 6 / F ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 145

PAGE 10

10 8 3 Stress analysis for concrete mixtures with a coefficient of thermal expansion of 5.5 10 6 / F ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 145 8 4 Stress analysis for concrete mixtures with a coefficient of thermal expansion of 6.0 10 6 /F ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 146 A1 Compressive strength test results for concrete containing no RAP .................. 152 A2 Compressive strength test results for concrete containing RAP 1 .................... 154 A3 Compressive strength test results for concrete containing RAP 2 .................... 157 A4 Compressive strength test results for concrete containing RAP 3 .................... 160 A5 Compressive strength test results for concrete containing RAP 4 .................... 163 A6 RAP ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 165 A7 rete containing RAP 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 167 A8 RAP 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 168 A9 Modulus of RAP 3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 170 A10 RAP 4 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 171 A11 Splitting tensile strength test results for concrete containing no RAP ............... 173 A12 Splitting tensile strength test results for concrete containing RAP 1 ................. 174 A13 Splitting tensile strength test results for concrete containing RAP 2 ................. 175 A14 Splitting tensile strength test results for concrete containing RAP 3 ................. 176 A15 Splitting tensile strength test results for concrete containing RAP 4 ................. 178 A16 Flexural strength test data for concrete containing no RAP .............................. 179 A17 Flexural strength test data for concrete containing RAP 1 ............................... 180 A18 Flexural streng th test data for concrete containing RAP 2 ............................... 182 A19 Flexural strength test data for concrete containing RAP 3 ............................... 184

PAGE 11

11 A20 Flexural stre ngth test data for concrete containing RAP 4 ............................... 185 A21 Modulus of toughness data for concrete containing no RAP ............................ 186 A22 Modulus of t oughness data for concrete containing RAP 1 .............................. 187 A23 Modulus of toughness data for concrete containing RAP 2 .............................. 187 A24 Modulus of tou ghness data for concrete containing RAP 3 .............................. 189 A25 Modulus of toughness data for concrete containing RAP 4 .............................. 190 A26 Shrinkage test d ata for concrete containing no RAP after air curing ................ 192 A27 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing RAP 1 after air curing .................. 193 A28 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing RAP 2 after air curing .................. 194 A29 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing RAP 3 after air curing .................. 195 A30 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing RAP 4 after air curing .................. 197 A31 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing no RAP after moist curing ............ 198 A32 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing RAP 1 after moist curing .............. 199 A33 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing RAP 2 after moist curing .............. 201 A34 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing RAP 3 after moist curing .............. 202 A35 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing RAP 4 after moist curing .............. 203 A36 Coefficient of thermal expansion test data for concrete containing no RAP ..... 205 A37 Coefficient of thermal expansion test data for concrete containing RAP 1 ....... 206 A38 Coefficient of thermal expansion test data for concrete containing RAP 2 ....... 207 A39 Coefficient of thermal expansion test data for concrete containing RAP 3 ....... 209 A40 Coefficient of thermal expansion test data for concrete containing RAP 4 ....... 210

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Representation of aggregate particles in paste (Koehler and Fowler, 2007). ..... 23 2 2 Examples of mixtures with insufficient paste volume (left) and sufficient paste volume (right) for filling ability (Koehler and Fowler, 2007). ................................ 23 2 3 Coarseness factor chart proposed by Shilstone. ................................ ................ 27 2 4 Shilstone 8 18 band chart ................................ ................................ ................... 28 2 5 Ideal plot on individual percentage retained chart ................................ .............. 28 2 6 Problematic plot on individual percentage retained chart ................................ ... 29 2 7 0.45 power chart for a well graded mix ................................ ............................... 30 2 8 0.45 power chart for a gap graded mix. ................................ .............................. 30 2 9 Individual percent retained for optimized mix ................................ ...................... 32 2 10 0.45 power chart for optimized mix ................................ ................................ ..... 32 2 11 Coarseness factor chart for optimized mix ................................ ......................... 33 2 12 Gradation of aggregates and RAP (Huang, e t al. 2006) ................................ ..... 34 2 13 Grain size distribution for aggregate and RAP (Al Oraimi, et al. 2007) ............... 34 2 14 Particle size distribution of R AP and virgin aggregates (Kang, et al. 2011) ........ 35 2 15 Propagation of crack through aggregate with and without asphalt film (Huang, et al. 2006). ................................ ................................ ........................... 36 2 16 Compressive strength of concrete containing RAP (Al Oraimi, et al. 2009) ....... 37 2 17 Reduction in compressive strength of concrete containing RAP (Al Oraimi, et al. 2009) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 37 3 1 Gradation chart for virgin fine aggregate ................................ ............................ 44 3 2 Gradation chart for virgin coarse aggregate ................................ ....................... 46 3 3 Gradation chart for fine RAP aggregate ................................ ............................. 49 3 4 Gradation chart for coarse RAP aggregate ................................ ........................ 50

PAGE 13

13 4 1 Coarseness factor chart for concrete mixtures containing 20% RAP ................. 57 4 2 Coarseness factor chart for concrete mixtures containing 40% RAP ................. 58 4 3 Coarseness factor chart for concrete mixtures containing 70% RAP ................. 58 4 4 Coarseness factor chart for concrete mixtures containing 100% RAP ............... 59 4 5 Individual percentage retained chart for concrete mixtures containing 20% RAP 1 and 20% RAP 2 ................................ ................................ ...................... 60 4 6 Individual percentage retained chart for concrete mixtures cont aining 20% RAP 3 and 20% RAP 4 ................................ ................................ ...................... 61 4 7 Individual percentage retained chart for concrete mixtures containing 40% RAP 1 and 40% RAP 2 ................................ ................................ ...................... 61 4 8 Individual percentage retained chart for concrete mixtures containing 40% RAP 3 and 40% RAP 4 ................................ ................................ ...................... 62 4 9 Individual percentage retained chart for concrete mixtures containing 70% RAP 1 and 70% RAP 2 ................................ ................................ ...................... 62 4 10 Individual percentage retained chart for concrete mixtures containing 70% RAP 3 and 70% RAP 4 ................................ ................................ ...................... 63 4 11 Individua l percentage retained chart for concrete mixtures containing 100% RAP 1 and 100% RAP 2 ................................ ................................ .................... 63 4 12 Individual percentage retained chart for concrete mixtures containing 100% RAP 3 and 100% RAP 4 ................................ ................................ .................... 64 4 13 0.45 power chart for gradation of concrete mixtures containing RAP 1 .............. 65 4 14 0.45 power chart for gradation of concrete mixt ures containing RAP 2 .............. 66 4 15 0.45 power chart for gradation of concrete mixtures containing RAP 3 .............. 67 4 16 0.45 power chart for gr adation of concrete mixtures containing RAP 4 .............. 68 5 1 Weighing scale used ................................ ................................ .......................... 72 5 2 Drum mixer used for mixing of concrete ................................ ............................. 72 5 3 Polythene sheets used to cover the specimen ................................ ................... 73 5 4 Moisture room used for curing of specimen ................................ ........................ 73 5 5 Hardened surface of concrete containing RAP ................................ ................... 74

PAGE 14

14 5 6 Compressive strength test setup ................................ ................................ ........ 77 5 7 Modulus of ................................ ............ 79 5 8 Failure of concrete specimen in flexural strength test ................................ ......... 81 5 9 Flexural strength t est setup ................................ ................................ ................ 81 5 10 Splitting tensile strength test setup ................................ ................................ ..... 82 5 11 Failure of concrete specimen in splitting tensile strength test ............................. 83 5 12 Drying shrinkage test setup ................................ ................................ ................ 84 5 13 Grinding machine used to ground all the concrete specimens ........................... 86 5 14 Coefficient of thermal expansion test setup ................................ ........................ 86 6 1 Compressive strength of concrete mixtures containing RAP .............................. 91 6 2 Development of compressive strength at different curing times compared to 28 days curing time ................................ ................................ ............................ 92 6 3 Percentage reduction in compressive strength of concrete containi ng RAP ...... 93 6 4 Modulus of elasticity of concrete mixtures containing RAP ................................ 96 6 5 Development of modulus of elasticity at different c uring times compared to 28 days curing time ................................ ................................ ................................ 97 6 6 Percentage reduction in modulus of elasticity of concrete mixtures containing RAP ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 98 6 7 ................................ ....... 100 6 8 Flexural strength of concrete mixtures containing RAP ................................ .... 103 6 9 Development of flexural strength at different curing times compared to 28 days curing time ................................ ................................ ............................... 104 6 10 Percentage reduction in flexural strength of concrete mixtures containing RAP ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 105 6 11 Stress strain plot for concrete containing RAP 2 at 7 days of curing time ........ 106 6 12 Stress strain plot for concrete containing RAP 3 at 14 days of curing time. ..... 107 6 13 Stress strain plot for concrete containing RAP 4 at 28 days of curing time ...... 108

PAGE 15

15 6 14 Stress strai n plot for concrete containing RAP 1 at 90 days of curing time ...... 108 6 15 days of curing time. ................................ ................................ .......................... 109 6 16 Splitting tensile strength of concrete mixtures containing RAP ......................... 111 6 17 Development of splitting tensile strength at different curing times compa red to 28 days curing time ................................ ................................ ...................... 112 6 18 Percentage reduction in splitting tensile strength at 90 days of curing ............. 113 6 19 Adjusted coef ficient of thermal expansion for RAP 1 at 90 days of curing time 115 6 20 Adjusted coefficient of thermal expansion for RAP 2 at 90 days of curing time 116 6 21 Adjusted coefficient of thermal expansion for RAP 3 at 90 days of curing time 117 6 22 Adjusted coefficient of thermal expansion for RAP 4 at 90 days of curing ti me 117 6 23 Coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete mixtures containing RAP 1 ........ 118 6 24 Coefficient of thermal expansion of co ncrete mixtures containing RAP 2 ........ 118 6 25 Coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete mixtures containing RAP 3 ........ 119 6 26 Coeffici ent of thermal expansion of concrete mixtures containing RAP 4 ........ 119 6 27 Drying shrinkage of concrete mixtures with RAP 1 after air curing ................... 122 6 28 Drying shrinkage of concrete mixtures with RAP 2 after air curing. .................. 123 6 29 Drying shrinkage of concrete mixtures with RAP 3 after air curing ................... 123 6 30 Drying shrinkage of concrete mixtures with RAP 4 after air curing ................... 124 6 31 Drying shrinkage of concrete mixtures with RAP 1 after moisture curing ......... 124 6 32 Drying shrinkage of concrete mixtures with RAP 2 after moisture curing ......... 125 6 33 Drying shrinkage of concrete mixtures with RAP 3 a fter moisture curing ......... 125 6 34 Drying shrinkage of concrete mixtures with RAP 4 after moisture curing. ........ 126 6 35 Relationship between compressive strength and flexural strength ................... 127 6 36 Relationship between compressive strength and elastic modulus .................... 128 6 37 Relati onship between compressive strength and splitting tensile strength ....... 129

PAGE 16

16 6 38 Relationship between splitting tensile strength and flexural strength ................ 130 7 1 Stress strength ratio of concrete mixtures containing RAP at 28 days of curing time ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 139 7 2 Stress strength ratio of concrete mixtures containing RAP at 90 days of curin g time ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 139 8 1 Stress strength ratio chart for concrete with a CTE of 4.5 10 6 / F ................. 146 8 2 Stress strength ratio chart for concre te with a CTE of 5.0 10 6 / F ................. 147 8 3 Stress strength ratio chart for concrete with a CTE of 5.5 10 6 / F ................. 147 8 4 Stress strengt h ratio chart for concrete with a CTE of 6.0 10 6 / F ................. 148 B 1 Stress strain plot for concrete mixtures with RAP 2 at 14 days of curing time 213 B 2 Stress strain plot for concrete mixtures with RAP 2 at 28 days of curing time 213 B 3 Stress strain plot for concrete mixtures with RAP 2 at 90 days of curing time 214 B 4 Stress strain plot for concrete mixtures with RAP 3 at 7 days of curing time ... 214 B 5 Stress strain plot for concrete mixtures with R AP 3 at 28 days of curing time 215 B 6 Stress strain plot for concrete mixtures with RAP 3 at 90 days of curing time 215 B 7 Stres s strain plot for concrete mixtures with RAP 4 at 7 days of curing time ... 216 B 8 Stress strain plot for concrete mixtures with RAP 4 at 14 days of curing time 216 B 9 Stress strain plot for concrete mixtures with RAP 4 at 90 days of curing time 217 C1 Traffic volume adjustment factors, vehicle class distribution, and hourl y truck traffic distribution ................................ ................................ .............................. 218 C2 Traffic growth factor, general traffic inputs, and axle configuration ................... 219 C3 Layer 2 input par ameters ................................ ................................ .................. 220 C4 Layer 3 input parameters ................................ ................................ .................. 220 C5 Layer 4 input parameters ................................ ................................ .................. 222

PAGE 17

17 Abstract of Disser tation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy EVALUATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURES CONTAINING RAP FOR USE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENTS By Nabil Hossiney August 2012 Chair: Mang Tia Major: Civil Engineering This study evaluated the feasibility of using concrete containing recycled asphalt from different locations in Florida. Concrete mixtures containing 0%, 20%, 40%, 70%, and 100% RAP were produced in the laboratory. The mechanical properties, thermal properties, and aggregate gradation of concrete mixtures containing RAP were evaluated in this study. Results of t he laboratory testing program indicate that compressive strength, modulus of elasticity, flexural strength and splitting tensile strength decreases as the percentage of RAP increases. The reduction in flexural strength is lower than the corresponding reduc tion in compressive strength and splitting tensile strength. The coefficient of thermal expansion and drying shrinkage increases as the percentage of RAP increases. Th e results of the stress strain property of concrete containing RAP indicate that the fail ure strain increases as the percentage of RAP increases. For the concrete mixtures with RAP the combined aggregate gradation improved when the RAP was combined with #57 aggregate and silica sand. Using the measured prope rties, analysis was performed using FEACONS (Finite Element

PAGE 18

18 Analysis of CONcrete Slabs) to determine the maximum stresses in a typical concrete pavement under critical temperature and load conditions. The results of the analysis show that the maximum stresses in pavement decreases as the RA P content of the mix increases, due to d ecrease in the elastic modulus. Though the flexural strength of the concrete with RAP was lower than that of the conventional concrete, the computed stress to strength ratio for some of the RAP concrete was lower tha n that for the conventional concrete. This indicates that a RAP concrete can have a potentially better performance than a conventional concrete when used in concrete pavement slabs. A recommended method for designing concrete with RAP for pavement applicat ion was developed as the result of this study.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 1.1 Problem Statement Reclaimed or recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) materials have been used in recycled asphalt pavement mixtures in Florid a, resulting in substantial savings in cost and conservation of aggregates and asphalt. However, with the adoption of the more stringent Superpave mix design method in Florida in recent years, a smaller percentage of RAP is now being used in the recycled asphalt mixtures. This has resulted in an excess of RAP which needs to be put into good use. The possible use of RAP in concrete pavement not only would help to dispose of our excess RAP, but could provide us with a concrete which could improve the perfor mance and cost effectiveness of our pavements 1.2 Hypothesis of Research The use of RAP as an aggregate replacement in concrete can reduce the elastic modulus of the concrete and thus reduce the load and temperature induced stresses in concrete. Other impr oved properties include increased toughness and better gradation of the aggregate in the concrete. Thus the use of RAP can result in better performance in concrete pavement slabs. 1.3 Research Objectives The main objectives of this research project are as follows: To characterize the mechanical and thermal properties of concrete containing RAP as affected by its mix ingredients, production methods, curing conditions and other relevant factors, in order to have a better understanding of the behavior of this type of concrete. To evaluate the gradation of concrete mixtures containing RAP To study the stress strain behavior of concrete containing RAP

PAGE 20

20 To evaluate the performance of a hypothetical concrete pavement with the determined properties of concrete contai ning RAP using critical stress analysis. 1.4 Scope of the Research Four different FDOT RAP sources were used to acquire four different RAPs for this research proje ct. Concrete mixtures with 0%, 20%, 40%, 70% and 100% aggregate replacement by RAP for both c oarse portion and fi ne portion were produced and evaluated All the concrete mixtures had a fixed proportion of fine to coarse aggregate ratio and a fixed water to cement ratio of 0.5. Mechanical properties and thermal properties of the concrete mixtures w ere determined accord ing to ASTM and AASHTO standard methods at different curing periods of 7 days, 14 days, 28 days and 90 days. Analysis for the maximum load temperature induced stresses in typical concrete pavement was performed using FEACONS IV program under critical loading conditions in Florida. 1.5 Research Approach The f ollowing approach was taken to study the properties of concrete containing RAP and the feasibility of using this type of concrete in concrete pavement slabs Literature Review: 1) Ch aracterization of aggregate gradation in concrete; 2 ) Properties of concrete containing recycled asphalt pavement Selection of RAP material: Four different FDOT approved RAP sources were used for this research project. The had different pro perties in terms of recovered binder viscosity and aggregate properties. Mix design for concrete containing RAP: All the mix designs had fixed water to cement ratio Concrete mixtures with 0%, 20%, 40%, 70% and 100% RAP as aggregate replacement were produ ced in laboratory. The following tests were performed at different curing periods of 7 days, 14 days, 28 days and 90 days according to ASTM and AASHTO standards: 1) Compressive strength ; 2) Splitting tensile strength ; 3) Modulus of e lasticity ratio ; 4) Flexural strength ; 5) Drying shrinkage ; 6) C oefficient of thermal expansion

PAGE 21

21 Evaluation of the gradation of the combined aggregate of the concrete containing RAP Evaluation of performance for rigid pavements with incorporation of RAP : FEACONS IV program was used to evaluate the performance of a hyp othetical concrete pavement using the determined proper ties of concrete containing RAP.

PAGE 22

22 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Characterization of Aggregate Gradation in Concrete 2.1 .1 Maximum D ensity Method Early work by Fuller and Thompson showed the importance of aggregate combined gradation on the workability and strength of concrete. They also developed an ideal shape of the combined gradation curve (Fuller and Thompson, 1907) They conclude d that the concrete mixtures with densely graded aggregates had the highest strength. B ut some researchers concluded that concrete produced with aggregate gradation of maximum density would be harsh and difficult to use. (Talb ot and Richart, 1923). The equ ( 2 1 ) Where, P = percent finer than an aggregate size d = aggregate size taken for consideration D = maximum aggregate size n = parameter that controls fineness and coarseness of the cu rve (0.5 for maximum particle density) The use of well graded and well shaped aggregate with high packing density can significantly reduce the volume of the paste required, thus improving the properties of hardened concrete. Figure 2 1 shows the conceptual representation of aggregate particles in concrete. Apart from the paste required to fill up the voids between the aggregate, additional paste is required to separate the aggregate and make the concrete flowable. (Koehler and Fowler, 2007)

PAGE 23

23 Figure 2 1 Re presentation of aggregate particles in paste (Koehler and Fowler, 2007). Figure 2 2 Examples of mixtures with insufficient paste volume (left) and sufficient paste volume (right) for filling ability (Koehler and Fowler, 2007). 2.1 .2 Fineness Modulus Fin eness modulus was used as an index of coarseness or fineness of an aggregate. Fineness mod ulus was determined as follows: ( 2 2 ) The sieves selected by Abrams were 11/2 3/4 3/8 #4, #8, #14, #28, #48 and #100. The #14, #28 and #48 sieves were later repla ced by #16, #30 and #50 sieves. Abrams found that grading of the mixtures was affected by fineness modulus of the aggregate. He stated t hat for any concrete mix with aggregate that gives the same

PAGE 24

24 fineness modulus the same quantity of water would be needed to produce a mix of same plasticity and strength. 2.1 .3 Surface Area and Particle Interface Method Edward, 1918 and Young, 1919, used the method of proportioning aggregate based on the surface area of the aggr egate. They concluded that less water is requi red for the aggregate with lower surface area, when less water is used, it results in a lower water to cement ratio and a stronger concrete. Particle interface method was proposed by Weymouth in 1933. In order to determine satisfactory gradation he deter mined the volumetric relationship between the successive size groups of particles. It was based on the assumption that the particles of each group are distributed throughout the mass in such a way that the distance between them is equal to the mean diamete r of the particles of the smaller size group plus the thickness of the cement film between them. Between two successive sizes the particle interference occurred when the distance between the particles is not sufficient to allow free passage of the smaller particles. This method results in gradings finer than necessary for satisfactory workability. The equation for the distance between the part icles by Weymouth is as follows: (2 3 ) Where, t = average distance between particles of diameter D do = density of the size group (the solids present in a unit volume alone, secured by a unit weight and specific gravity t est)

PAGE 25

25 da = ratio of the absolute volume of a size group to the space available to that size in concrete D = average diameter of the particles in the size group 2.1 4 Coarseness Factor Shilstone came up with a concept called coarseness factor chart from the aggregate gradation, which could be used to predict the workability of the concrete mixtures. The coarseness factor chart is a method of anal yzing the size and uniformity of the combined aggregate particle distribution, instead of considering the coarse an d fine aggregate separately. The equation for coarseness factor chart is as follows, (2 4) Where, Q = Coarse particles which is plus 3/8 ", and I = Coarse particle s on #4 and #8 sieve. Thus a coarseness factor (CF) with a value of 100 would represent a gap graded aggregate blend with no material between 3/8 and #8, while a coarseness factor (CF) of zero would be an aggregate that has no material retained on the 3/8 percentage of mater ial passing #8 sieve. Figure 2 3 shows the coarseness factor chart that was proposed by Shilstone. The x axis of the chart is the coarseness fa ctor (CF) and the y axis is the workability (W) as discussed above. A trend bar was included in order to use it as a reference and to find the optimal region based on the trial batches performed for different concrete mixtures. In general the concrete mix tures that fall above the trend bar are considered to be sandy mixtures, and the mixtures below the trend line were considered to be rocky mixtures. The mixtures that fall in the trend bar will require least amount of water for a given slump, but the concr ete can be difficult to

PAGE 26

26 pump or even have poor finishability. In a modified coarseness factor chart the entire chart area was divided into five zones which will be used to study the concrete mixtures containing RAP. In the coarseness factor chart we have five zones with the roman letter s I to V as shown in the figure Zone I is the condition of a gap graded mixture and will encounter potential problems of segregation or unnecessary consolidation due to lack of intermediate particles. These mixtures will n ot be cohesive and so a clear separation between the coarse particles and the mortar will be observed. Zone II, is the condition of an optimum mixture. Mixtures that fall in this zone are well graded and excellent for regular production use. High quality concrete can be produced when the coarseness factor is approximately 60 and the workability is around 35. Zone II is also divided into five regions. Depending on the applications each of these small regions in Zone II can be beneficial. Zone III is the e xtension of Z one II and is for aggregates with smaller maximum aggregate size (approximately 1/2 ") Zone IV is the condition of excessive fines that can lead to segregation. Mixtures in zone IV can also cause high permeability, shrinkage, cracking, curling spalling and scaling. Zone V is the condition of very coarse mix with lack of fines making the mixtures nonplastic. Mixtures in this zone will require high amount of fine aggregate to make the mix workable. The coarseness factor chart can also be used to maintain the mix characteristic with the changing aggregate gradation. For example, as the amount of intermediate particles increases in the mix, the coarseness factor decreases. In this case more fines should be added to make the mix workable.

PAGE 27

27 Figu re 2 3 Coarseness factor chart proposed by Shilstone. 2.1 .5 Individual Percent Retained The individual percent retained chart provides a method for graphing the distribution of different sizes of aggregates in a combined aggregate plot. It helps to reveal the this chart is the region were the ideal aggregate gradation should be, it is the limitations on the minimum and maximum of the amount of aggregate fractions proposed by Shil stone as shown in F igure 2 4. Figure 2 5 shows the ideal individual percentage retained curve that must be achieved. However with the current ASTM C33 aggregate specification, with #57 aggregate and ASTM C33 sand, there is a deficit in particles retained o n the #8 and #16 sieves, and excess of particles retained on the #30 and #50 sieves as shown in F igure 2 6 Such kinds of gradation lead to problems like cracking spalling and blistering of concrete. If there is a deficit on one sieve and the adjacent

PAGE 28

28 si eve has an excess desirable to have three adjacent deficient sieve sizes Figure 2 4 Shilstone 8 18 band chart Figure 2 5 Ideal plot on individual percentage retained chart

PAGE 29

29 Figure 2 6 P roblematic plot on individual percentage retained chart 2.1 .6 0.45 Power Chart The 0.45 power chart is similar to semi log graph, except the x axis is the sieve opening plotted on a 0.45 power scale The 0.45 power chart is widely used in the asphalt indus try to reduce t he voids of the combined aggregate and the amount of asphalt in the asph alt mixture design. The optimum line on the 0.45 power chart i s the straight line, which will give the least amount of voids and best packing in the combined aggregate The deviations from the optimum line helps to identify the location of grading problems as shown in F igure 2 8 Gradings should be close to the optimum line with very little deviation and zigzag patterns as shown in F igure 2 7 S shaped curve will usually form in the case of a gap graded mix. (ACI.302.1R 04 2004)

PAGE 30

30 Figure 2 7 0.45 power chart for a well graded mix Figure 2 8 0.45 power chart for a gap graded mix.

PAGE 31

31 2.2 Effect of Aggregate Gradation on Concrete Properties According to recent study, optim ized aggregate gradation concrete (OAG) provided 9% higher flexural strength than normal aggre gate gradation concrete (NAG). There was a r eduction in shrinkage and coefficient of thermal expansion when the aggregate gradation was optimized (Kim et al. 200 8). In a report provided by the Innovative Pavement Research F oundation the authors stated that the use of combined gradation for optimization plays a major role in the performance of concrete pavements at airports. Gap graded concrete mixtures are not a cceptable according to the proposed specifications, as it may cause segregation and joint spalling which might affect the long term performance of concrete pavements. Thus use of combined gradation and innovative ways of optimizing the mixtures should be performed by the contractors and engineers, (Tayabji et al. 2007). Study performed in Wisconsin showed that the use of optimized total aggregate gradation instead of near gap graded gradation in concrete pavement resulted in an increase in the compressiv e strength by 10 to 20%. Reduction in segregation, reduction in water demand by up to 15% to achieve desirable slump was observed. Desirable air content was achieved with 20 to 30% reduction in air entraining agent. In another study optimized gradation was achieved by increasing the aggregate particles retained on #4 to #16 sieves and decreasing amount of fines on #50 to #200 sieves. A control mix with 60 40 blend of coarse/ fine aggregate and a nearly gap graded was produced by removing the particles in #4 to #16 sieves. According to the study the optimized gradation mixes did not show consistent improvement in performance compared to the control mixes. The near gap graded mixes showed reduced strength and increased shrinkage. (Cramer, S.M. and Carpenter, A .J., 1999)

PAGE 32

32 Figure s 2 9 through figure 2 11 show the individual percentage retained chart, 0.45 power chart, and coarseness factor chart for optimized mixtures. This optimized mix resulted in reduction in cracking, increase in air entrainment increase in s trength, and decrease in placement time. Figure 2 9 Individual percent retained for optimized mix Figure 2 10 0.45 power chart for optimized mix

PAGE 33

33 Figure 2 11 Coarseness factor chart for optimized mix 2.3 Properties of Recycled Asphalt Pavement Recl aimed asphalt pavement (RAP) is bituminous concrete material removed and reprocessed from pavements which have to undergo resurfacing or reconstruction. The reclaiming process involves cold milling a portion of the existing pavement or full depth removal a nd crushing. The properties of RAP largely depend on the condition of pavement from where it is reclaimed. There can be significant variation in the material due to the type of mix, aggregate quality and size, asphalt mix consistency and asphalt content. R AP is usually finer than its original aggregate constituents, due to processing of the material. Typically RAP is produced by crushing and screening the material to1/4 to 1/2 in size (Griffiths and Krstulovich, 2002 ). According to Kang et al. 2011, ad dition of RAP to virgin aggregate increased the proportion of medium to coarse fractions in the mixtures. In the FA aggregate RAP mixtures increase in the proportion of RAP increased the proportions of medium and c oarse fraction as shown in the F igure 2 14 Results of the gradation

PAGE 34

34 study showed that the fine RAP is much coarser than the virgin fine aggregate and coarse RAP is much finer th an the virgin coarse aggregate. The proportion of medium fractions in RAP aggregate is much higher as s hown in F igure 2 12 Similar trends were observed by Al Oraimi, as shown in F igure 2 13 Figure 2 12 Gradation of aggregates and RAP (Huang, et al. 2006) Figure 2 13 Grain size distribution for aggregate and RAP (Al Oraimi, et al. 2007)

PAGE 35

35 Figure 2 14 Particle size distribution of RAP and virgin aggregates ( Kang, et al. 2011) 2.4 Concrete Properties Containing Recycled Asphalt Pavement In concrete made with RAP asphalt forms a thin film at the interface of cement mortar and aggregate, which can be useful in resisting the crack propagation going along that direction. Thus crack develops along the aggregate rather than going through it as shown in F igure 2 15 during which more energy can be dissipated ( Huang, et al. 2006) .Huang also showed that con crete made with only coarse RAP shows a better performance in toughness and has the least reduction in the concrete strength For concrete with high percentage of RAP, aggregates do not sep arate after failure but sustain load even after initial failure. It has also been observed that with such a concrete with RAP there is a systematic reduction in the strength of the concrete. Generally the strength decreases with increase in the content of RAP (Huang, et al. 2005). Hassan et.al 2000, showed that RAP a ggregate reduced the compressive strength of the concrete and the reduction in the strength is proportional to the

PAGE 36

36 percentage of RAP used. The author also found that combination of fine RAP and coarse RAP cause more reduction in strength than the combinati on of coarse RAP and sand. The performance properties of concrete containing RAP improved with the use of fly ash as indicated by the measurements of porosity and permeability. Concrete containing RAP enhances the ductility and strain capacity of the concr ete. This improvement in property can be u seful for applications such like rigid pavements, road bases and sub bases. Figure 2 15 Propagation of crack through aggregate with and without asphalt film (Huang, et al. 2006). Al Oraimi et al 2009, found that the general trend of strength develop ment for RAP concrete and the relations between compressive strength, elastic modulus and flexural strength for concrete mixtures with RAP agreed well with the normal concrete. Reduction in slump with increasing RA P content was observed. According to the author RAP can be used as aggregate in non structural applications but the percentage of RAP should be limited to achieve the required performance for the desired application Figure 2 16 shows the reduction of com pressive strength with inc rease in percentage of RAP and F igure 2 17 shows the percent reduction in compressive strength for different percentage of RAP replacement.

PAGE 37

37 Figure 2 16 Compressive streng th of concrete containing RAP ( Al Oraimi, et al 2009) Figure 2 17 Reduction in compressive strength o f concrete containing RAP ( Al Oraimi, et al 2009)

PAGE 38

38 Delwar, et al. 1997 investigated varying percent of replacements for coarse and fine RAP (0, 25, 50, 75 and 100) with two different water to cement rat ios (0.45 and 0.50). They concluded that in general concrete containing RAP increased the amount of entrapped air, decreased the unit weight and decreased the slump of the concrete. Reduction in modulus of elasticity and compressive strength was also obser ved with the increase in the percentage of RAP. Delwar concluded that concrete containing high percentage of RAP should be used for non pavement applications like sidewalks, gutters and barriers. Sommer 1994 performed a study with RAP replacement of 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100% in concrete. They found reduction in compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural strength and elastic modulus with increasing percentage of RAP. They also stated that it wo uld be acceptable to add 50% coarse RAP into th e concrete mixtures and strength of RAP concrete could be improved by reducing the water to cement ratio. Mathias, et al. 2004, studied five different total RAP contents (12.5, 26, 51 and 90%) for concrete mixtures. Compressive strength, splitting tensile strength and elastic modulus tests were performed at three different temperatures of 2, 20 and 40 C. Results showed that compressive strength, splitting tensile strength and elastic modulus decreased with increasing RAP and that as the amount of RAP in co ncrete increased, the concrete properties became more sensitive to temperature. They also performed fatigue testing and concluded that for concrete mixture with 90% RAP the fatigue failure was approximately 10% lower to achieve at least one million cycles to fatigue failure.

PAGE 39

39 Okafor, 2010, found that RAP aggregate may be able to absorb more impact load than virgin aggregate after performing impact crushing test. His study also found that concrete mixtures with RAP had reduced slump but the mixtures were st ill workable. Reduction in the strength of the concrete at different curing time and water cement ratio was also observed. He also stated that the failure in compression often resulted as the failure between RAP mortar interface with little aggregate crush ing, while the virgin aggregate often fail by crushing of the aggregate. Katsakou and Kolias, 2007, replaced 10, 25, 50, 75 and 100% RAP for a cement treated mixture. They found the compressive strength decreased with increasing percentage of RAP content in the mix. For splitting tensile strength, the strength decreased with increase in RAP content. However, the flexural strength of the material was unchanged up to 50% RAP replacements. The rate of strength loss in tension was lower than in compression wi th increasing RAP content. They also found that the rate of decrease in the modulus of elasticity was greater than the rate at which the strength decreased. Topcu and I sikdag, 2009, studied the use of fine RAP as a replacement to natural fine aggregate in mortars with replacements of 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100%. They found the compressive strength, modulus of elasticity, flexural strength, and unit weight of concrete decreased as the percentage of RAP replacement increased. The amount of free shrinkage increase d for the mixtures with RAP. Researchers have also studied the use of RAP and aggregate freshly coated with asphalt in concrete for subbase applications. In general, they found reduction in compressive strength, modulus of elasticity, and flexural strengt h for concrete mixtures

PAGE 40

40 containing RAP and asphalt coated aggregates. They also found the drying shrinkage to increase for concrete mixtures containing RAP and asphalt coated aggregate. (Dumitru, et al. 1999, Patankar and Williams, 1970) Li, et al. 1998, s tudied the use of coarse aggregate coated with asphalt emulsion into cement mortar for the application of base layer as a lean concrete. They showed that cement asphalt emulsion concrete had a more ductile fatigue failure with a longer period of crack prop agation as compared with the control mixtures. It also resulted in a better fatigue performance at the same stress strength ratio relative to the control mixture. They studied the stress strain behavior and found that at higher temperatures, the stress pea k is lower and the post peak strain is significantly extended, enhancing the strain capability of the material. However, at lower temperatures the stress strain behavior was found to be similar to that of plain concrete. In Austria a section of concrete pavement was reconstructed using the crushed concrete from the existing highway and RAP from the preexisting asphalt overlay. The contractors also placed a 20 year guarantee for that pavement section subjected to skid resistance, joint seal performance, a nd other measures. Till today the roadway has not reported any problems. (Tompkins, et al. 2009)

PAGE 41

41 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM 3.1 Introduction This chapter presents the materials used for this research study and the concrete mix pr oportions used It also presents the details of the material properties. 3.2 Selection of Materials All the materials selected were approved by the FDOT materials office at Gainesville, Florida. Type I/II cement from Florida Rock I ndustries was selected f or this research study. The fine aggregate used was a silica sand and the coarse aggregate used was a Miami Oolite limestone. Recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) was selected from four different districts in Florida, and was from FDOT approved sources as show n in the T able 3 1 Recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) was such that there was a wide range of the recovered binder viscosity and recovered aggregate type. The details of will be discussed in the section on material propert ies Ta bl e 3 1. Details of the RAP material selected for this research study RAP T ype District Number Location Plant Name Plant or Pit Number 1 2 Gainesville, Florida V.E. Whitehurst and Sons, Inc. A0212/A0213 2 3 Freeport, Florida APAC Florida, Inc. Nort h Florida division A0628 3 4 Vero beach, Florida Community asphalt corporation A0697 4 5 Ocala, Florida Anderson Columbia company, Inc. A0706

PAGE 42

42 3.3 Material Properties 3.3.1 Cement Type I/II cement was used for all the concrete productions in this research study. The physical and chemical properties for the cement were provided by FDOT and are shown in T able 3 2. The resu lts are compared with ATSM speci fications. Table 3 2 Physical and chemical properties of Portland cement Test Standard S peci fication Cement P roperty Limits Loss of I gnition ASTM C114 3.0% <= 3.0 Cement Acid I nsoluble ASTM C114 0.57% <= 0.75 Fineness of Portland C ement ASTM C204 408.00 sqm/Kg >= 260.00 <= 430.00 Time of S etting (Initial) ASTM C191 100.00 min >= 45 Time of S etting (Final) ASTM C191 300.00 min <= 375.00 Autoclave E xpansion ASTM C151 0.04% <= 0.80 3 Day Breaks for Compressive Strength of C ement ASTM C109 3510.00 psi >= 1450.00 psi 7 Day Breaks for Compressive Strength of C ement ASTM C109 4580 psi >= 2470.0 0 psi Aluminum O xide ASTM C114 5.0% <= 6.0 % Ferric O xide ASTM C114 4.0% <= 6.0% Magnesium O xide ASTM C114 1.3% <= 6.0% Sulfur T rioxide ASTM C114 2.7% <= 3.0% Tricalcium A luminate ASTM C114 6% <= 8.0% Tricalcium S ilicate ASTM C114 70% T otal A lkali a s Na2O ASTM C114 0.35% <= 0.60%

PAGE 43

43 3.3.2 Fine Aggregate The fine aggregate is a silica sand mined from the plant number #76 349 The properties of fine aggregate were pro vided by FDOT and are shown in T able s 3 3 through 3 5 Table 3 3 shows the specific gr avity and water absorption of the fine aggregate. Table 3 4 shows the gradation of the first batch of fine aggregate and T able 3 5 shows the gradation of the second batch of fine aggregate Both of t he fine aggregates had the same specific gravities and on ly slight difference in water absorption From the gradation results it can be observed that fine aggregate# 2 was much finer than the finer aggregate# 1. For the gradation of fine aggre gate # 2 percent passing #30 sieve does not fit the grading limits of A STM specification. Figure 3 1 shows the gradation chart of virgin fine aggregate. It can be seen that the fine aggregate gradation is very close to the maximum limits of the ASTM standards and is very fine. Table 3 3 Specific gravity and water absorption of fine aggregate Property Unit Fine A ggregate 1 Fine A ggregate 2 Bulk Specific Gravity ( SSD ) / 2.63 2.63 Bulk Specific Gravity (Dry) / 2.62 2.62 Apparent Specific Gravity (Dry) / 2.65 2.65 Absorption % 0.50 0.40 Table 3 4 Gradation of fine aggre g ate# 1 Sieve Size Cumulative Retained (%) Passing (%) Grading L imits US inch mm Min (%) Max (%) #4 0.187 4.75 0 100 95 100 #8 0.093 2.36 1 99 85 100 #16 0.046 1.18 9 91 65 97 #30 0.024 0.60 30 70 25 70 #50 0.012 0.30 68 32 5 35 #100 0.006 0.15 9 5 5 0 7 #200 0.003 0.075 100 0 0 2 Fineness modulus 2.03

PAGE 44

44 Table 3 5 Gradation of fine aggre gate# 2 Sieve Size Cumulative Retained (%) Passing (%) Grading L imits US inch mm Min (%) Max (%) #4 0.187 4.75 0 100 95 100 #8 0.093 2.36 1 99 85 100 #16 0.046 1.18 7 93 65 97 #30 0.024 0.60 25 75 25 70 #50 0.012 0.30 69 31 5 35 #100 0.006 0.15 97 3 0 7 #200 0.003 0.075 100 0 0 2 Fineness modulus 1.99 Figure 3 1 Gradation chart for virgin fine aggregate

PAGE 45

45 3.3.3 Coarse Aggregate The coarse aggrega te used for this research study was Miami Oolite mined from the plant number #87 090. The properties of coarse aggregate were pro vided by FDOT and are shown in T able s 3 6 through 3 8. Table 3 6 shows the specific gravity and wa ter absorption of the coarse aggregate. Table 3 7 shows th e gradation of coarse aggregate#1 and T able 3 8 shows th e gradation of coarse aggregate# 2. Coarse aggregate# 2 wa s coarser than coarse aggregate# 1 and did not fit in the grading limits as shown in the F igure 3 2. Table 3 6 Sp ecific gravity and water absorption of coarse aggregate Property Unit Coarse A ggregate 1 Coarse A ggregate 2 Bulk Specific Gravity (SSD) / 2. 43 2.41 Bulk Specific Gravity (Dry) / 2. 35 2.33 Apparent Specific Gravity (Dry) / 2. 55 2.53 Absorption % 4.54 3. 45 Table 3 7 Gradation of coarse aggre gate# 1 Sieve Size Cumulative Retained (%) Passing (%) Grading L imits US inch mm Min (%) Max (%) 11/2 1.476 37.5 0 100 100 100 1 0.984 25 0 100 95 100 1/2 0. 492 12.5 45 55 25 60 #4 0.187 4.75 94 6 0 10 #8 0.093 2.36 97 3 0 5 Table 3 8 Gradation of coarse aggre gate# 2 Sieve Size Cumulative Retained (%) Passing (%) Grading L imits US inch mm Min (%) Max (%) 11/2 1.476 37.5 0 100 100 100 1 0.984 25 1 99 95 100 1/2 0.492 12.5 80 20 25 60 #4 0.187 4.7 5 98 2 0 10 #8 0.093 2.36 98 2 0 5

PAGE 46

46 Figure 3 2 Gradation chart for virgin coarse aggregate 3.3.4 Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) The material that was retained on the number #4 sieve (4.75 mm) was cons idered as coarse RAP and the material passing num ber #4 sieve was considered as fine RAP. Both fine RAP and coarse RAP were tested for their physical properties by FDOT. The properties of RAP that were determined are gradation, recovered asphalt content, penetration and viscosity o f the recovered asphalt binder Table 3 9 shows the properties of recovered asphalt binder fro m RAP. The recovered asphalt binder visc osity is higher for fine RAP tha n the coarse RAP. Fine RAP 1 has the highest a sphalt binder viscosity among the coarse

PAGE 47

47 RAP s, not much difference in the recovered binder viscosity for different RAP types was observed. Table 3 10 and T able 3 11show the specific gravity and water absorption of all fine RAP and coarse RAP The specific gravity and absor ption for the fine RAP lower than those of t he coarse RAP Table 3 12 and Table 3 13 show the gradation of fine RAP and coarse RAP. The fineness modulus of the RAP shows that fine RAP is much coarser than the virgin fine aggregate and also the gradati on curves for th e fine RAP do not fit the standard gradation limits of the virgin fine aggregate as shown in the F igure 3 3. The gradation of the coarse RAP shows it to be much finer than the virgin coarse aggregate and they do no t fit the standard gradation limits of v irgin co arse aggregate as shown in the F igure 3 4. Table 3 9 Properties of recovered asphalt binder from RAP RAP N umber Recovered Aggregate T ype Recovered V iscosity (poises) Asphalt C ontent (%) Penetration of Recovered A sphalt Fine RAP Coarse RAP Fine RAP Coarse RAP Fine RAP Coarse RAP 1 Limestone and G ranite 517963 202744 5.5 3.6 6 7 2 Calera Dense L imestone 434452 249890 5.5 4.3 13 17 3 Florida L imestone 422769 112847 4.9 3.9 8 15 4 Florida Limestone and G ranite 308427 253709 5.9 4.4 / /

PAGE 48

48 Table 3 10 Specific gravity and water absorption of fine RAP Property Unit Fine RAP 1 Fine RAP 2 Fine RAP 3 Fine RAP 4 Bulk Specific Gravity (SSD) / 2.38 2.34 2.31 2.30 Bulk Specific Gravity (Dry) / 2.33 2.32 2.30 2.26 Apparent Specific Gravity (Dry) / 2.44 2 .37 2.32 2.35 Absorption % 1.92 1.0 0 0.51 1.80 Table 3 11 Specific gravity and water absorption of coarse RAP Property Unit Coarse RAP 1 Coarse RAP 2 Coarse RAP 3 Coarse RAP 4 Bulk Specific Gravity (SSD) / 2.43 2.38 2.33 2.35 Bulk Specific Gravity (D ry) / 2.38 2.34 2.29 2.27 Apparent Specific Gravity (Dry) / 2.50 2.43 2.38 2.47 Absorption % 1.89 1.50 1.72 3.52 Table 3 12 Gradation of fine RAP Sieve Size Passing (%) US inch mm RAP 1 RAP 2 RAP 3 RAP 4 3/8 0.375 9.38 100 100 100 100 #4 0.187 4. 75 75 94 85 80 #8 0.093 2.36 49 63 62 52 #16 0.046 1.18 33 40 47 32 #30 0.024 0.60 17 20 34 18 #50 0.012 0.30 5 6 16 6 #100 0.006 0.15 1 1 4 1 #200 0.003 0.075 0.15 0.2 0.5 0.3 Fineness modulus 4.2 3.76 3.52 4.11 Table 3 13 Gradation of coarse RA P Sieve Size Passing (%) US inch mm RAP 1 RAP 2 RAP 3 RAP 4 1 0.984 25 100 100 100 100 3/4 0.75 19 99.6 99 100 100 1/2 0.492 12.5 91 67 96 97 3/8 0.375 9. 5 63 46 64 82 #4 0.187 4.75 13 16 4 30 #8 0.093 2.36 0 0 1 0

PAGE 49

49 Figure 3 3 Gradation cha rt for fine RAP aggregat e

PAGE 50

50 Figure 3 4 Gradation chart for coarse RAP aggregate 3.4 Concrete Mix Proportions The concrete mix proportions with 0%, 20%, 40%, 70% and 100% RAP by volume of aggregate were designed for this research study. The control mixture with no RAP was designed based on a typical concrete pavement in Florida. The cement content was fixed between 490 lbs/yd 3 to 500 lbs/yd 3 and the water cement ratio was fixed to 0.50 The percentage o f total fine in mix was between 38% and 43% of the tot al aggregate in the mix, by volume. Trial mix was performed before every production mix and the percentage fines were adjusted as needed depending on the workability of the trial batch. Water reducer was added during trial batch to get the desired target s lump.

PAGE 51

51 For all the mixtures air entraining agent was added, as it is a usual practice in Florida to improve the workability and durability of pavement concrete. The dosage of air entraining agent was kept constant and the slump of the concrete was achieved by adjusting the water reduc ing admixture A total of 19 mixtures were produced in the laboratory and evaluated in this research st udy. Three control mixtures using Miami Oolite limestone and fine silica sand aggregate with three different water cement ra tios were produced. Concrete mixtures with four different RAP aggregates and with four different percent of aggregate replacements were evaluated in this research study. For a concrete with 20% RAP, the virgin fine aggregate was replaced by 20% fine RAP by volume, and the virgin coarse aggregate was replaced by 20% coarse RAP by volume. For a concrete with 40% RAP, the virgin fine aggregate was replaced by 40% fine RAP by volume, and the virgin coarse aggregate was replaced by 40% coarse RAP by volume. F or a concrete with 70% RAP, the virgin fine aggregate was replaced by 70% fine RAP by volume, and the virgin coarse aggregate was replaced by 70% coarse RAP by volume. For all the mix proportions wi th RAP, correction was made for the excessive fines in coa rse RAP. This correction was done by reducing the fine RAP quantity and increasing the coarse RAP quantity by volume, such that the overall percent replacement of fine RAP and coarse RAP would not change. Table 3 14 shows all the concrete mixtures that we re evalua ted in this research study and T able 3 15 shows the mix proportions for these different concrete mixtures produced in the laboratory.

PAGE 52

52 Table 3 14 Concrete mixtures containing RAP to be evaluated Mix T ype Number W/C Cement (lbs/yd 3 ) Total Fine and Coarse Aggregate in Percentage by V olume Total RAP (%) Virgin fine Fine RAP Virgin coarse Coarse RAP Control 1 0.45 556 100 0 100 0 0 2 0.50 500 100 0 100 0 0 3 0.55 454 100 0 100 0 0 RAP 1 4 0.50 500 80 20 80 20 20 5 0.50 500 60 40 60 40 40 6 0.50 500 30 70 30 70 70 7 0.50 500 0 100 0 100 100 RAP 2 4 0.50 500 80 20 80 20 20 5 0.50 500 60 40 60 40 40 6 0.50 500 30 70 30 70 70 7 0.50 500 0 100 0 100 100 RAP 3 4 0.50 500 80 20 80 20 20 5 0.50 500 60 40 60 40 40 6 0.50 500 30 70 30 70 70 7 0.50 500 0 100 0 100 100 RAP 4 4 0.50 500 80 20 80 20 20 5 0.50 500 60 40 60 40 40 6 0.50 500 30 70 30 70 70 7 0.50 500 0 100 0 100 100

PAGE 53

53 Table 3 15 Mix proportions of concrete mixtures used in thi s research study Mix T ype Number RAP (%) W/C Water (lbs/yd 3 ) Cement (lbs/yd 3 ) Coarse A ggregate (lbs/yd 3 ) Fine A ggregate (lbs/yd 3 ) AEA Daravair (oz) WRDA 60 (oz) Virgin RAP Virgin RAP Control 1 0 0.45 250 556 1816 0 1195 0 1 15 2 0 0.50 250 500 1845 0 1212 0 1 12 3 0 0.55 250 454 1865 0 1228 0 1 9 RAP 1 4 20 0.50 250 500 1460 368 1003 202 1 30 5 40 0.50 250 500 1072 740 788 410 1 0 6 70 0.50 250 500 485 1300 448 740 1 0 7 100 0.50 250 500 0 1657 0 1265 1 46 RAP 2 4 20 0.50 248 493 1421 285 998 260 1 45 5 40 0.50 248 495 1036 621 770 515 1 39 6 70 0.50 250 499 528 1195 382 813 1 39 7 100 0.50 248 495 0 1683 0 1167 1 62 RAP 3 4 20 0.50 246 491 1403 330 1049 226 1 30 5 40 0.50 246 491 104 7 660 821 441 1 30 6 70 0.50 250 499 511 1137 415 804 1 30 7 100 0.50 250 500 0 1562 0 1241 1 30 RAP 4 4 20 0.50 250 497 1338 346 1097 235 1 30 5 40 0.50 250 497 959 702 853 470 1 15 6 70 0.50 250 497 516 1166 412 800 1 18 7 100 0.5 0 250 500 0 1525 0 1283 1 60

PAGE 54

54 CHAPTER 4 EVALUATION OF AGG REGATE GRADATIONS OF CONCRETE CONTAINING RAP 4.1 Co mbined Aggregate Gradation Table 4 1 and T able 4 2 shows the combined gradation of fine and coarse aggregate with various percentage s of aggregat e replacements by RAP Fineness modulus of the fine aggregate increased with the increase in the percentage of the RAP in the mixtures due to the coarseness of fine RAP The fine fraction of the aggregate and the coarse fraction of the aggregate were com bined volumetrically to determine the individual percentage retained on each sieve. The retained on the individual percentage retained chart. From the individual percentage retained values the coarseness factor and the workability of every mix was determined. The total material retained on the 3/8 sieve was considered as coarse particles. The total material retained on the #4 and #8 sieve was considered as intermediate particle s T he ratio of particles retained on 3/8 sieve and the particles retained on 3/8 #4 and #8 sieve was the coarseness factor. The particles passing the #8 sieve was used to calculate the workability. This chart was developed for the all the concrete m ixtures to evaluate the effect s of RAP on the workability of the concrete mix. 4.2 Evaluation of Aggregate Gradations Three major steps, as recommended by Shilstone were followed to evaluate the aggregate gradation of concrete mixtures containing RAP. First, t he coarseness factor of the combined aggregate was determined to provide us an overview of the mixtures workability based on aggregate gradation.

PAGE 55

55 Table 4 1 Combined gradation of fine aggregate with various percentage of RAP Sieve S ize RAP 1 RAP 2 RAP 3 RA P 4 Percent R eplacement Percent R eplacement Percent R eplacement Percent R eplacement 20 40 70 20 40 70 20 40 70 20 40 70 Percent P assing Percent P assing Percent P assing Percent P assing 3/8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 #4 96 91 85 99 97 95 97 94 90 97 93 88 #8 90 82 68 93 86 76 92 85 74 91 83 71 #16 75 67 53 80 71 59 79 73 61 83 73 57 #30 61 52 38 66 56 42 67 60 48 66 56 41 #50 28 23 16 27 23 16 28 25 21 28 23 17 #100 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 #200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Finen ess M odulus 2.46 2.81 3.37 2.32 2.64 3.10 2.34 2. 60 3. 02 2. 31 2. 68 3. 23 Table 4 2 Combined gradation of coarse aggregate with various percentage of RAP Sieve S ize RAP 1 RAP 2 RAP 3 RAP 4 Percent R eplacement Percent R eplacement Percent R eplacement Perc ent R eplacement 20 40 70 20 40 70 20 40 70 20 40 70 Percent P assing Percent P assing Percent P assing Per cent P assing 11/2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1 100 100 100 99 99 100 99 99 100 99 99 100 1/2 62 70 81 29 39 54 34 48 72 36 53 79 #4 7 9 11 5 8 12 2 3 3 8 14 24 #8 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 Total Fineness M odulus 5.09 5.17 5.30 5.17 5.16 5.32 5.14 5.16 5.19 4.99 5.09 5.11 Second the individual percentage retained chart was plotted to reveal the unwanted gaps in the particl e sizes. Finally the ideal 0.45 chart for aggregate gradation was plotted; deviation from the ideal line wi ll help us to differentiate between different

PAGE 56

56 concrete mixtures Each of the above steps will be discussed separately in the following sections. 4. 2 .1 Coarseness Factor of Combined Aggregate Figure s 4 1 through 4 4 show the coarseness factor chart for concrete mixtures containing 0%, 20%, 40%, 70% and 100% RAP, respectively. The control mixture is plotted very clos e to the boundary line between zone II and zone IV which shows that there is too much fines in the control mixtures making it pr one to shrinkage and cracking. Figure 4 1 shows the coarseness factor chart for concrete mixtures containing 20% RAP. The mixt ures with 20% RAP 1, 20% RAP 3 and 20% RAP 4 were located in zone II of the coarseness factor chart, which is the optimal zone on this chart. However, the mix with 20% RAP 2 was slightly off the optimal zone and located in zone I. G eneral ly, the concrete m ixtures with 20% RAP were very similar to the control mix, except for 20% RAP 1. Figure 4 2 shows the coarseness factor chart for concrete mixtures containing 40% RAP. All the mixtures with 40% RAP were located in the optimal zone of the coarseness factor chart. The mixture with 40% RAP 1 was located on the trend bar and other mixtures started moving away from the trend bar. The coarseness factor decreased with addition of 40% RAP which shows the increase in the intermediate size particles in the mix Howe ver, this causes a decrease in the workability for concrete mixtures with 40% RAP, but it is still a reasonable reduction since the mixtures are located in the optimum zone. Figure 4 3 shows the coarseness factor chart for concrete mixtures containing 70% RAP. The mixtures with 70% RAP 2 and 70% RAP 3 were located on the trend bar and the mixtures with 70% RAP 1 and 70% RAP 4 were slightly below the trend bar in

PAGE 57

57 zone V. This shows the coarseness of the mixture increases as the percentage of the RAP replac ement increases, and the workability decreases due to reduction in the fine particles in the mix. Similarly for all the mixtures with 100% RAP the coarseness fa ctor and the workability decreased, thus making the mix very coarse and unreasonable for any ap plication. At this point the mixtures with 7 0% and 100% RAP need more fines to increase the workability of the mix. However, for the mixes with 20% RAP and 40% RAP the workability and the coarseness factor are in the optimum zone for almost all the mixtur es. Figure 4 1 Coarseness factor chart for concrete mixtures containing 20% RAP

PAGE 58

58 Figure 4 2 Coarseness factor chart for concrete mixtures containing 40% RAP Figure 4 3 Coarseness factor chart for concrete mixtures containing 70% RAP

PAGE 59

59 Figure 4 4 Coarseness factor chart for concrete mixtures containing 100% RAP 4.2 .2 Individual Percentage Retained of Combined Aggregate The coarse aggregate and the fine aggregate were combined volumetrically for the specific mixture to determine the individual per centage retained chart. The individual percentage chart can help us to identify the excess or lack of aggregate particles on the specific sieves. Figures 4 5 through 4 12 show the individual percentage retained charts for concrete mixtures with 0%, 20%, 4 0%, 70% and 100% RAP. For the mixtures with no RAP there is a double hump behavior showing lack of intermediate sized particles retained on the #8 and # 16 sieves and excessive particles retained on 3/8 and #30 sieves For concrete m ixtures with 20% RAP there is too much m aterial retained on the 3/8 #4 and #30 sieves However, there is little increase in the intermediate size particles when compared with the mixture with no RAP.

PAGE 60

60 For concrete mixt ures with 40% RAP there is much better improvement for i ntermediate size particles with increase in the material retained on the #8 and #16 sieves compared to the other mixtures. The concrete mixtures wi th 40% RAP also fitted better on as compared with mixtures with other RAP replacement s For c oncrete mixtures with 70% and 100% RAP there is too much material retained on 3/8 #4, #8 and #16 sieves which shows that there is too much of intermediate sized particles with lack of very coarse a nd very fine aggregate. However the mix with 70% RAP 2 In general the concrete mixtures with no RAP were gap graded with lack of intermediate sized particles. The addition of RAP increases the amount of intermediate size particles with concrete mixtures wit h 40% RAP fitting much b etter on band as compared with the mixes with other RAP replacement s. Figure 4 5 Individual percentage retained chart for concrete mixtures containing 20% RAP 1 and 20% RAP 2

PAGE 61

61 Figure 4 6 Individual percentage retained chart for concrete mi xtures containing 20% RAP 3 and 20% RAP 4 Figure 4 7 Individual percentage retained chart for concrete mixtures containing 4 0% RAP 1 and 4 0% RAP 2

PAGE 62

62 Figure 4 8 Individual percentage retained chart for concrete mixtures containing 4 0% RAP 3 and 4 0% RAP 4 Figure 4 9 Individual percentage retained chart for concrete mixtures containing 7 0% RAP 1 and 7 0% RAP 2

PAGE 63

63 Figure 4 1 0 Individual percentage retained chart for concrete mixtures containing 7 0% RAP 3 and 7 0% RAP 4 Figure 4 11 Individual percentage retained chart for concrete mixtures containing 10 0% RAP 1 and 10 0% RAP 2

PAGE 64

64 Figure 4 12 Individual percentage retained chart for concrete mixtures containing 10 0% RAP 3 and 10 0% RAP 4 4.2 .3 0.45 Power Chart of Combined Aggregate The 0.45 power chart was plotted for all the aggregate gradation with different RAP replacements as shown in Figure 4 13 to Figure 4 16 The 0.45 power chart shows that the coarse RAP is much finer than the virgin coarse aggregate with too much RAP passing 3/4 1/2 and 3/8 whi le the fine RAP is much coarser than the virgin fine aggregate with very little passing the #30 and #50 sieves. The concrete mixtures without RAP are gap graded with little material between #8 and #30 sieves In general t he 0.45 power curve for 40% RAP re placement mixtures was c loser to the optimum line than the other mixtures.

PAGE 65

65 Figure 4 13 0.45 power chart for gradation of concrete mixtures containing RAP 1

PAGE 66

66 Figure 4 14 0.45 power chart for gradation of concrete mixtures containing RAP 2

PAGE 67

67 Figure 4 15 0.45 power chart for gradation of concrete mixtures containing RAP 3

PAGE 68

68 Figure 4 16 0.45 power chart for gradation of concrete mixtures containing RAP 4

PAGE 69

69 4.3 Summary of Findings The addition of RAP to virgin aggregate improves the combined gradation o f the aggregate. The fineness modulus of the fine aggregate increased as the percentage of fine RAP increased in the mix. The individual percent retained on the #8 and #16 sieves increased as the percentage of RAP increased in the mix. The concrete mixture s with 40% RAP showed the best gradation in terms of the coarseness factor, individual percent retained on #8 and #16 sieves and 0 .45 power chart.

PAGE 70

70 CHAPTER 5 CONCRETE PRODUTION AND TEST METHODS 5.1 Introduction This chapter prese nts the details of the methods for the preparation o f concrete in laboratory, specimen preparation and curing procedure. Table 5 1 shows all the standard tests performed on the fresh and hardened co ncrete. The details of these test s are also presented in t his chapter. Following are the list of concrete properties measured in this study : Fresh concrete properties : 1) Slump ; 2) Unit weight; 3) Air content ; 4) Concrete T emperature Hardened concrete properties : 1) Compressive strength ; 2) Modulus of elasticity ; 3) Flexural strength ; 4) Splitting tensile strength ; 5) ; 6) Coefficient of thermal expansion ; 7) Drying shrinkage Table 5 1 Standard tests on fresh and hardened concrete Concrete Test Standard Slump ASTM C143 Unit W eight ASTM C138 Air C ontent ASTM C173 Fresh Concrete T emperature ASTM C1064 Compressive S trength ASTM C39 odulus ASTM C 469 Flexural S trength ASTM C 78 Splitting Tensile S trength ASTM C 496 atio ASTM C 469 Coefficient of Thermal E xpansion AASHTO T 3 36 09 Drying S hrinkage ASTM C157 5.2 Fabrication and Curing of Concrete Specimen Concrete mix tures were produced at the FDOT materials concrete laboratory in Gainesville, Florida. Drum mixer with a capaci ty of 9.5 cubic feet was used to produce concrete Trial batches were produced before every production batch in order to ensure the slump and workability of the concrete mixtures. Table 5 1 shows the number of specimen and volume of the concrete produced per batch.

PAGE 71

71 5.2 .1 Concrete Preparation The f ollow ing steps were performed to produce concrete in laboratory: Fill the cloth bags with the coarse and fine aggregates required for mix Dry the fine aggregate for at least 24 hours in the oven at 230 F, and then let it cool for another 24 hours inside the la b. Soak the coarse aggregate for 48 hours and let it si t outside the tank for 30 minutes before weighing. Store all the RAP material inside the lab in cloth b ags and weigh it as is for mixing except for RAP 1, which was soaked before mixing Use the weigh ing scale to weigh all the ma terials for mixing as shown in F igure 5 1 Place all the aggregate in the drum mixer as shown in F igure 5 2 Mix it for 30 seconds Add all of the air entraining agent to half of the mixing water Add half of the mix ing water wi th air entraining agent into the drum mixer and mix it for 1 minute Add the required water reducer into the remaining half of the mixing water. Place cement into the mixer and add the remaining half of the mixing water with the water reducer, mix it for 3 minutes, followed by a 2 minute rest, followed by 3 minute mixing Perform fresh concrete property test to ensure the workability. If workability is not achieved, add more water reducer to the mix 5.2.2 Specimen Preparation After the concrete was produc ed some portion was immediately used to perform tests to determine fresh concrete properties. The r emaining concrete was used to fabricate different concrete specimens as follows : Cylinders, beams and prisms were casted.

PAGE 72

72 Figure 5 1 Weighing scale used Figure 5 2 Drum mixer used for mixing of concrete

PAGE 73

73 Molds were filled by concrete into three layers and each layer was vibrated for almost 45 seconds. If the concrete is not workable vibrate it for additional time in order to ensure proper consolidation. A vibrating table was used to consolidate all the specimens The concrete specimens were covered with polythene sheets to avoid loss of moisture as shown in F igure 5 3. Specimens were removed from the molds after 24 hours and placed in the moist curing ro om as shown in F igure 5 4 Figure 5 5 shows the hardened concrete surface of concrete mixtures containing different percentage of RAP Figure 5 3 Polythene sheets used to cover the specimen Figure 5 4 Moisture room used for curing of specimen

PAGE 74

74 Figure 5 5. Hardened surface of concrete containing RAP 5.3 Tests on Fresh Concrete The slump test was immediately performed after the concrete was produced in order to ensure the workability of the mix. If the right workability was not achieved the n some water reducer was added to make the concrete workable. As the target slump was achieved, the remaining tests on the fresh concrete were performed in accordance to the ASTM standards as mentioned below. The results of the fresh concrete tests are discussed in ch apter 6. The following fresh concrete tests were performed: Slump: The slump test measures the workability of the fresh concrete. The slump test was performed in accordance with ASTM C143 standard. The slump value was used to evaluate the consistency of fresh concrete. Air content test: The volumetric method was used to determine the air content in accordance with ASTM C173 standard. Unit weight test: The density of the fresh concrete can be determined by weighing a known volume of concrete. This test was used to verify the density of concrete mixture for quality control in accordance with the ASTM C 138 standard. Temperature test: This test was used to ensure the temperature of fresh concrete was within the normal range, and that there was no unexpe cted condition in the fresh concrete. Temperature of the fresh concrete was determined in accordance with ASTM C1064.

PAGE 75

75 T able 5 2 Fresh and hardened concrete t ests run per batch of concrete Test Name Sample Size Sample Volume (ft) Curing Age (days) Numb er of Samples P er M ix Volume of Samples Per M ix (ft) Total Volume Per M ix (ft) Compressive S trength 4" 8" 0.0587 7,14, 28, 90 12 0.7044 9.0 Flexural S trength 4" 4" 14" 0.129 7,14, 28, 90 20 2.58 Modulus of E lasticity 4" 8" 0.0587 7,14, 28, 90 12 0.7044 Splitting Tensile S trength 4" 8" 0.0587 7,14, 28, 90 12 0.7044 Coefficient of Thermal E xpansion 4" 8" 0.0587 7,14, 28, 90 12 0.7044 Free S hrinkage 3" 3" 11.25" 0.05859 7,14, 28, 90 6 0.70308 Air content of Fresh C oncret e 0.071 0.071 Slump of Fresh C oncrete* Unit wt. of Fresh C oncrete* Total 6.17 Note: The fresh concrete used in the slu mp and unit weight tests were re us ed

PAGE 76

76 5.4 Tests on Hardened Concrete 5.4 .1 Compressive Strength Test The compressive strength was performed on 4 8 concrete cylinder specimen in accordance with ASTM C39 standard test method Three replicate specimens were tested at each of the different curing times of 7, 14, 28 and 90 days. Prior to the test both the ends of the specimen were ground in order to ensure uniform load during testing. The load was applied co ntinuously without stopping or s hocking at the stress rate of 35 7 psi/s. S ince the ends of the specimen had been grinded no capping compou nd or rubbe r pads were applied as shown in F igure 5 6 The compressive strength of the specimen is calculated by dividing the maximum load carried by the specimen during the test by average cross sectional area determined as shown in the following equation ( 5 1 ) Where, P = Ultimate compressive axial load applied to cylinder in lbs, A = cross sectional area ( ) of the cylinder in inches There are five types of fracture in concrete cylinder according to the ASTM standard. These fractures are cone fracture, cone and split fracture, cone and shear fracture, shear fracture and columnar fracture. Majority of the specimens encountered shear fr acture in this research study.

PAGE 77

77 Figure 5 6 Compressive strength test setup 5.4 Test test was performed on 4 8 concrete cylinder specimen in acc ordance with ASTM C469 standard test method as shown in Figure 5 7 Three replicate specimens were tested at each of the different curing times of 7, 14, 28 and 90 days. Compressive load was applied to concrete cylinder in the longitudinal direction. The t est was carried out on a compressive testing machine which had connections to the load cell and the LVDT the compressive strength test was performed on three specimens in accord ance with ASTM C39 standard. The 40% of the ultimate compressive strength was determined from three samples and averaged. Then 40% of the average ultimate compressive strength was applied on the specimen to perform the elastic modulus test. For each specim en four repetitions were performed and the average of last three was recorded as the elastic modulus of that specimen. The equation used to measure the elastic modulus is as follows.

PAGE 78

78 ( 5 2 ) ( 5 3 ) Where, E = Chord modulus of elasticity 1 = Stress corresponding t o a longitudinal strain of 50 millionths 2 = Stress corresponding to 40% of ultimate load 1 = 50 millionths 2 2 horizontal strai n in the front while the whole setup rotates about a pivot point in the ( 5 4 ) Where, = Pois t 1 = transverse strain at specimen mid height due to stress of 1 2 = transverse strain at specimen 2 1 = 50 millionths 2 2 ere nondestructive with maximum applied load of 40% of the average ultimate compressive strength. The loading rate was adjusted to 35 7 psi/s.

PAGE 79

79 Figure 5 7 s ratio test setup 5.4 .3 Flexural Strength Test The flexural str ength test was performed on 4 4 14 concrete beam specimen in accordance with the ASTM C78 standard test method. Three replicate specimens were tested at each of the different curing times of 7, 14, 28 and 90 days. Before testing the loading surface and the edges of the beams were ground evenly by using a hand grinding stone. The grinding ensured that the applied load was uniform. The flexural strength was determined according to the type of failure or fracture in the beam. If the fracture initiates in the tension surface within the middle third of the span length, calculate the modulus of rupture using the following equation, ( 5 5 ) Where, R = modulus of rupture of the specimen in psi. P = maximum applied load on the specimen as indicated by the machine in lbf

PAGE 80

80 L = span length in inches. b = averag e depth of the specimen measured near the fracture in inches d = average depth of the specimen measured near the fracture in inches. If the fracture occurs in the tension surface outside of the middle third of the span length by not more than 5% of the spa n length, calculate the modulus of rupture as follows, ( 5 6 ) Where, a = average distance between line of fracture and the nearest support measured on the tension surface of the beam in inches. If the fracture occurs in the tension surface outside of the middle third of the span length by more than 5% of the span length, discard the results of the tests The f ollowing steps were followed to determine the stress strain values from the flexural strength test: The test was run using an Instron 3384 testing machine as shown in Figure 5 9 The tension surface which is the bottom side of the beam was smoothened with sand paper and cleaned with acetone. Mark the center point, one third point and support point of the beam with the permanent m arker. One strain gauge (PL 60 11 3L) was glued on the smoothened surface at center of the beam using the special Loctite 454 glue. Allow the glue to dry to get a perfect bond between strain gauge and the beam (approximately 45 minutes was sufficient for t he glue to dry for this test) Secure the wire in the area where it connects to the strain gauge using regular tape.

PAGE 81

81 Place the beams properly centered on the loading frame such that the one third mark accurately aligns with the loading platens. Attach the strain gauge to the data acquisition system to acquire the voltage readings Run the testing machine at a rate of 13.33 lbs/s, while acquiring both voltage data and the load cell data. The Labview program on the computer was programmed to calculate the stra in from the voltage data from the strain gauge and the stress was calculated from the ultimate load dete rmined from the Instron machine. Figure 5 8 shows the failure of beams containing RAP Figure 5 8 Failure of concrete specimen in flexural strength te st Figure 5 9 Flexural strength test setup

PAGE 82

82 5.4 .4 Splitting Tensile Strength Test The splitting tensile strength test was performed on 4 8 concrete cylinder specimen in accordance with ASTM C496 standard test method as shown in Figure 5 10 Three re plicate specimens were tested at each of the different curing times of 7, 14, 28 and 90 days. The specimens were marked along the center line using a permanent marker prior to the test. The specimen was placed in a gig which helps it to be clamped and alig ned properly during the test. Load is applied to the specimen through thin strips of plywood placed on the top and bottom sides of the specimen. The load is increased until failure occurs by indirect tension in the form of sp litting along vertical diameter as shown in Figure 5 11. Figure 5 10 Splitting tensile strength test setup The splitting tensile strength is calculated using the following equation, ( 5 7 ) Where, T i = splitting tensile strength of cylinder in psi, P i = maximum applied load to break the cylinder in psi L = length of cylinder in inches

PAGE 83

83 D = diameter of c ylinder in inches Figure 5 1 1. Failure of concrete specimen in splitting tensile strength test 5.4 .5 Drying Shrinkage Test Drying shrinkage test was performed on 3 3 11.25 concrete prism specimen in accordance with ASTM C157 standard test method. Steel end plates with a hole at their center were used to install gage studs at both ends of the specimen. The specimens were removed from the moulds after 24 hours of concrete mixing and specimen preparation An initial reading was immediately taken with a length comparator as shown in Figure 5 12 Three specimens were then allowed to dry at ambient condition in laboratory and three specimens placed in the moisture room. Length measurement on the specimen was taken at 7, 14, 28 and 90 days of curing time. The length change of a specimen at any age after the initial comparator reading was calculated as follows, ( 5 8 ) Where, L x = length change of specimen at any age.

PAGE 84

84 CRD = difference between the comparator reading of the specimen and the reference bar, and G = gauge length. Figure 5 12 Drying shrinkage test setup 5.4 .6 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Test The coefficient of thermal expansion was performed on 4 8 concrete cylinder specimen in accordance with AASHTO TP 60 00 standard test method. Three replicat e specimens were tested at each of the different curing times of 7, 14, 28 and 90 days. This test measures the coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete specimen, maintained in a saturated condition, by measuring the length change of the specimen due to specified temperature change s The measured length change is corrected for any change in length of the measuring apparatus, and the coefficient of thermal expansion is then calculated by dividing the corrected length change by the temperature change and t hen the specimen length. The coefficient of thermal expansion of one expansion or contraction test segment of a concrete specimen is calculated as follows, ( 5 9 )

PAGE 85

85 Where, L a = actual length change of specimen during temperature change, mm or in. L o = measured length of specimen at room temperature, mm or in. T = measured tem perature change in C. ( 5 10 ) Where, L m = measured length change of specimen during temperature change, mm or in. L f = length change of the measuring apparatus during temperat ure change, mm or in. ( 5 11 ) Where, C f = correction factor accounting for the change in length of the measurement apparatus with temperature, in 6 /in/ C. The test result is the average of the expansion reading and the contraction reading ( 5 12 ) The cylinders were sawed and grinded as shown in Figure 5 13 to the length of 7.0 0.1 in and then lengths were measured to the nearest 0.004 in. After measuring the length, specimens were submersed in the controlled temperature bath. The lower end of the specimen is firmly seated against the support button, and the LVDT tip is seated against the upper end of the specimen. The initial temperature of the bath was set to 10 1 C. After reaching the temperature, the bath was allowed to remain at this temperature until thermal equilibrium of the specimen has been reached, as measured

PAGE 86

86 by the LVDT to the nearest 0.00001in. Then temperature of the bath was changed to 50 1 C to get the second reading of the LVDT. The temperature was again changed to 10 1 C to get the final reading of the LVDT. The average value from the three specimens was used to measure the coefficient of the thermal expansion of the concrete mix. The test setup for the coefficient of thermal expansion test is shown in Figure 5 14. Figure 5 13 Grinding machine used to ground all the concrete specimens F igure 5 14 Coefficient of thermal e xpansion test setup

PAGE 87

87 CHAPTER 6 CONCRETE TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 6.1 Introduction This chapter presents the results and analysis of fresh and hardened concrete properties. Using the data evaluated from the concrete mixtures containing RAP in this study, the relationship s among the compressive strength, flexural strength, modulus of elasticity and splittin g tensile strength were developed and presented in this chapter. 6.2 Results of Fresh Concrete Properties The re sults of fresh concrete properties evaluated for all the concrete mixtures are shown in T able 6 1 For the concrete mixtures without RAP the slump was slightly higher and ranged between 3 to 5 inches (target slump was 1 to 3 inches) and for the concrete mixtures with RAP the slump was lower and ranged between 0 to 3 inches. The slump of concrete mixtures with RAP decreased as the percentage of RAP replacement increased in the mix. For all the concrete mixtures with 70% and 100% RAP the workability of th e mix was poor compared to concrete mixtures with 20% and 40% RAP mix The percentage air of the mix increased as the RAP content increased. However, for most of the concrete mixtures with RAP the percentage air was within the targeted range of 2 to 5%. T he unit weight of the concrete mixtures decreased as the percentage of RAP replacement increased. The unit weight of concrete mixtures without RAP was 140 lbs/ft 3 For concrete mixtures with 20%, 40%, and 70% RAP the unit weight was between 135 lbs/ft 3 and 140 lbs/ft 3 For mixtures with 100% RAP it was between 130 lbs/ft 3 and 135 lbs/ft 3 The temperature of concrete for all the mixtures was between 70 to 78 F, with RAP mixtures having slightly higher temperature compared to the normal mix.

PAGE 88

88 Table 6 1 Fres h concrete properties of the mixtures evaluated in this research study Mix T ype Number RAP (%) W/C Slump (in) Air C ontent (%) Unit W eight (lbs/ft 3 ) Temperature ( F) Control 1 0 0.45 3.50 4.50 140 73 2 0 0.50 4.25 3.20 140 70 3 0 0.55 5.00 3.30 140 74 RAP 1 4 20 0.50 4.25 4.50 139 77 5 40 0.50 3.25 3.70 139 72 6 70 0.50 3.00 3.75 135 75 7 100 0.50 1.50 6.80 130 77 RAP 2 4 20 0.50 1.25 5.50 139 73 5 40 0.50 1.00 5.00 137 73 6 70 0.50 0.75 4.50 136 73 7 100 0.50 0.25 4.00 1 35 75 RAP 3 4 20 0.50 1.25 4.25 139 75 5 40 0.50 1.75 4.25 138 75 6 70 0.50 1.00 3.50 137 75 7 100 0.50 0.50 3.50 132 77 RAP 4 4 20 0.50 1.25 4.50 138 77 5 40 0.50 1.25 4.50 138 77 6 70 0.50 0.25 4.70 137 77 7 100 0.50 0.25 5.00 132 77

PAGE 89

89 6.3 Analysis of Strength Test Results 6.3.1 Compressive Strength Test Results Table 6 2 summarizes the average compressive strength of all the concrete mixtures evaluated in this research study. For all the concrete mixtures there is a reduc tion in compressive strength with increase in the percentage of RAP in the concrete mix as shown in F igure 6 1. Figure 6 2 shows the development of compressive strength at different curing time s with respect to 28 day curing time. In general the concrete mixtures with RAP exhibited strength gain with respect to curing time. For mixtures with RAP 1, RAP 2, and RAP 3 the strength development was almost similar to the control mix. For concrete mixtures with RAP 4 the development of strength was much higher than any other mix, e specially for 100% RAP 4 mix. For the mix with 70% RAP 3 there was no strength gain observed at 90 day s of curing time. Figure 6 3 shows the reduction in compressive strength of concrete mixtures containing RAP at 90 days of curing t ime with respect to the control mix. For concrete mixtures with 100% RAP there is almost 70% reduction in compre ssive strength, when compared with the control mix. For concrete mixtures with 70% RAP there is almost 60% reduction in compre ssive strength, when compared with the control mix. For concrete mixtures with 40% RAP there is almost 40% reduction in compre ssive strength, when compared with the control mix. For concrete mixtures with 20% RAP there is almost 20% reduction in compre ssive strength, w hen compared with the control mix. There was slightly higher reduction observed for concrete mixture with 20% RAP 1 and the concrete mixtures with RAP 4 showed the least reduction in compressive strength when compared with all other concrete containing RAP

PAGE 90

90 The standard deviation was determined from six concrete specimens for each concrete mix at different curing times. The standard deviation for concrete mixtures with RAP 1 and RAP 2 was lower than the concrete mixtures with RAP 3 and RAP 4. The minimum st andard deviation of 17 psi was observed for concrete mixture with 100% RAP 2 at 28 days of curing time, and the maximum standard deviation of 316 psi was observed for c oncrete mixture with70% RAP 3 at 90 days of curing time. In general the concrete mixtur es with RAP exhibited lower standard deviation values for compressive strength. Table 6 2 Compressive strength of concrete mixtures evaluated Mix T ype Number RAP (%) W/C Average Compressive Strength of RAP C oncrete (psi) Curing T ime (days) 7 14 28 90 Control 1 0 0.45 5600 6165 6621 7031 2 0 0.50 4284 4654 5376 5793 3 0 0.55 3380 3823 4532 4982 RAP 1 4 20 0.50 2808 3356 3542 3944 5 40 0.50 2357 2727 2950 3330 6 70 0.50 1582 1794 2030 2205 7 100 0.50 1060 1316 1438 1460 RAP 2 4 20 0.50 3450 3902 4167 4539 5 40 0.50 2378 2637 2920 3080 6 70 0.50 1557 1607 1874 1959 7 100 0.50 1289 1450 1501 1568 RAP 3 4 20 0.50 3536 3797 4250 4455 5 40 0.50 2580 2785 3095 3211 6 70 0.50 1962 2125 2364 1915 7 100 0.50 1401 1527 1589 1818 RAP 4 4 20 0.50 3348 3825 3892 4564 5 40 0.50 2518 2740 2855 3343 6 70 0.50 2000 2051 2232 2509 7 100 0.50 1432 1379 1479 1793

PAGE 91

91 Figure 6 1 Compressive strength of c oncrete mixtures containing RAP

PAGE 92

92 Figure 6 2 Developm ent of compressive strength at different curing time s compared to 28 days curing time

PAGE 93

93 Figure 6 3 Percentage reduction in compressive strength of concrete containing RAP

PAGE 94

94 6.3.2 Modulus of Elasticity Test Results Table 6 3 summarizes the average modulus of elasticity of all the concrete mixtures evaluated in this research study. For all the concrete mixtures there is a reduction in elastic modulus with increase in the percentage of RAP as shown in F igu re 6 4 Figure 6 5 shows the development of modulus of elasticity of concrete mixtures at different curing times with respect to 28 days curing time. The concrete mixtures with RAP showed development in modulus of elasticity with respect to time. The devel opment of modulus of elasticity with time was much higher for 70% and 100% RAP mixtures, when compared with 20% and 40% RAP mixtures. In general concrete mixtures with RAP show development in modulus of elasticity with respect to time. Figure 6 6 shows t he reduction in modulus of elasticity of concrete mixtures containing RAP at 90 days of curing time with respect to normal concrete. The reduction in modulus of elasticity for concrete mixtures with RAP was almost similar to that of the compressive streng th reductions. There was not much difference in the reduction of modulus of elasticity between different RAP types. The standard deviation was determined from three concrete specimens for each concrete mix at different curing times. For the concrete mixtu res without RAP the maximum standard deviation for modulus of elasticity was 172 498 psi. For concrete mixtures with RAP 1, RAP 2, RAP 3 and RAP 4 the maximum standard deviation for modulus of elasticity was 303 462 psi, 120 277 psi, 266 124 ps i and 196 86 4 psi, respectively.

PAGE 95

95 Table 6 3 Modulus of Elasticity of concrete mixtures evaluated Mixture Type Number RAP (%) W/C Average Modulus of Elasticit y of RAP C oncrete (10 6 psi) Curing Time (days) 7 14 28 90 Control 1 0 0.45 4.42 4.41 4.57 4. 70 2 0 0.50 3.97 4.22 4.43 4.44 3 0 0.55 3.88 4.09 4.22 4.24 RAP 1 4 20 0.50 3.15 3.35 3.45 3.67 5 40 0.50 2.53 2.80 2.99 3.00 6 70 0.50 1.70 1.77 1.82 2.00 7 100 0.50 1.12 1.25 1.26 1.26 RAP 2 4 20 0.50 3.24 3.46 3.69 3.88 5 40 0.50 2.54 2.71 2.77 2.87 6 70 0.50 1.65 1.75 1.84 1.97 7 100 0.50 1.25 1.23 1.37 1.38 RAP 3 4 20 0.50 3.42 3.50 3.61 3.78 5 40 0.50 2.62 2.67 2.80 2.80 6 70 0.50 1.77 1.89 1.89 2.11 7 100 0.50 1.16 1.28 1.24 1.23 RAP 4 4 20 0.50 3.54 3.33 3.62 3.67 5 40 0.50 2.52 2.62 2.72 2.83 6 70 0.50 1.75 1.77 1.78 2.01 7 100 0.50 1.16 1.25 1.19 1.33 Table 6 evaluated in this research study. For all the concrete mixtures the numerical value of hout RAP exhibited low values of Poi of the RAP increased in the concrete mixtures. Figure 6 various curing time, with different types of RAP in concrete mixtures. ratio value was slightly higher for the mixtures containing RAP 1 comp ared with all other mixtures with RAP.

PAGE 96

96 Figure 6 4 Modulus of elasticity of concrete mixtures containing RAP

PAGE 97

97 Figure 6 5 Development of modulus of elasticity at different curing time s compared to 28 days curing time

PAGE 98

98 Figure 6 6 Percentage reduction in modulus of elasti city of concrete mixtures containing RAP

PAGE 99

99 Most of the concrete mixtures with RAP evaluated in this study exhibited increase in observed after the 28 days of curing. For co ncrete mixtures with no RAP the value of 0 and 0.25. For concrete mixtures with 20%, 40% and 70% RAP d was betw een 0.25 and 0.30 Table 6 4 mixtures evaluated Mixture Type Number RAP (%) W/C atio of RAP C oncrete Curing Time (days) 7 14 28 90 Control 1 0 0.45 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.25 2 0 0.50 0.21 0 .22 0.24 0.23 3 0 0.55 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.23 RAP 1 4 20 0.50 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.24 5 40 0.50 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.27 6 70 0.50 0.27 0.28 0.27 0.28 7 100 0.50 0.25 0.29 0.31 0.29 RAP 2 4 20 0.50 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.24 5 40 0.50 0.25 0.2 4 0.25 0.25 6 70 0.50 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.25 7 100 0.50 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.27 RAP 3 4 20 0.50 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.23 5 40 0.50 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 6 70 0.50 0.25 0.23 0.25 0.26 7 100 0.50 0.25 0.27 0.25 0.23 RAP 4 4 20 0.50 0.25 0.2 4 0.24 0.24 5 40 0.50 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 6 70 0.50 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.26 7 100 0.50 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.28

PAGE 100

100 Figure 6 7

PAGE 101

101 6.3.4 Flexural Strength Test Results Table 6 5 summarizes the average flexur al strength of all the concrete mixtures evaluated in this research study. For all the concrete mixtures there is a reduction in flexural strength with increase in the percentage of RAP in the mix as shown in F igure 6 8 Figure 6 9 shows the development of flexural strength of concrete mixtures at different curing times with respect to 28 days curing time. The concrete mixtures with RAP showed development in flexura l strength with respect to time, as compared with the control mix. The development of flexu ral strength with time was much higher for the 70% and 100% RAP mixtures, as compared with the 20% and 40% RAP mixtures. In general concrete mixtures with RAP show development in flexural strength with respect to time. Figure 6 10 shows the reduction of f lexural strength of concrete mixtures containing RAP at 90 days of curing time with respect to the normal concrete. The reductions in flexural strength of concrete mixtures with RAP 1 and RAP 4 were much lo wer than that of RAP 2 and RAP 3 except for 20% RAP 1. In general the maximum reduction in flexural strength was 50% 40%, 30%, and 20% for the concrete mixtures with 100%, 70%, 40%, and 20% RAP, respectively. T hese reductions in the flexural strength is lower than the corresponding reduction in compr essive strength and splitting tensile strength, which exhibited maximum reductions of almost 70% and 60%, respectively. Thus concrete mixtures containing RAP show 10% to 20% lower reduction in fle xural strength, when compared with the corresponding reducti on in compressive strength and splitting tensile strength.

PAGE 102

102 The standard deviation was determined from three concrete specimens for each concrete mix at different curing times. For the concrete mixtures without RAP the maximum standard deviation for flex ural strength was 73 psi. For concrete mixtures with RAP 1, RAP 2, RAP 3 and RAP 4 the maximum standard deviation for flexural strength was 48 psi, 38 psi, 40 psi and 42 psi, respectively. In general the standard deviations of flexural strength for all th e concrete mixtures were low. Table 6 5 Flexural Strength of concrete mixtures evaluated Mixture Type Number RAP (%) W/C Av erage Flexural Strength of RAP C oncrete (psi) Curing Time (days) 7 14 28 90 Control 1 0 0.45 665 745 750 753 2 0 0.50 630 666 686 694 3 0 0.55 592 630 664 680 RAP 1 4 20 0.50 490 540 563 520 5 40 0.50 471 513 575 586 6 70 0.50 382 420 453 489 7 100 0.50 301 343 394 405 RAP 2 4 20 0.50 517 598 583 633 5 40 0.50 465 482 517 52 0 6 70 0.50 380 385 410 414 7 100 0.50 334 362 370 370 RAP 3 4 20 0.50 525 533 570 594 5 40 0.50 471 475 479 516 6 70 0.50 409 389 386 441 7 100 0.50 332 324 342 360 RAP 4 4 20 0.50 564 551 597 620 5 40 0.50 460 464 514 55 2 6 70 0.50 368 404 428 473 7 100 0.50 356 354 358 415

PAGE 103

103 Figure 6 8 Flexural strength of concrete mixtures containing RAP

PAGE 104

104 Figure 6 9 Development of flexural strength at different curing time s compared to 28 days curing time

PAGE 105

105 Figure 6 10 Percen tage reduction in flexural strength of concrete mixtures containing RAP

PAGE 106

106 6.3.5 Modulus of Toughness Test Results Table 6 6 summarizes the average toughness of all the concrete mixtures evaluated in this research study. The toughness was calculated by det ermining the area under the stress strain curve. This stress and strain values were determined from the beam test or f lexural strength test. Figure s 6 11 through 6 14 show the stress strain plots for different concrete mixtures containing RAP at different curing times. The concrete mixtures without RAP fail at a much higher stress, but the strain at failure is much lower due to brittle behavior of the concrete material. In case of concrete mixtures with RAP the failure stress decreases as the percentage of RAP increases, but the failure strain increases as the percen tage of RAP increases. Figure 6 15 shows the toughness of concrete mixtures with different types of RAP, with respect to the control mixture with no RAP. In general the toughness of the concrete increased as the percentage of RAP in the mix increased. This also indicates that the concrete mixtures with RAP perform better in bending, which may benefit the performance of the concrete pavements Figure 6 11 Stress strain pl ot for concrete contain ing RAP 2 at 7 days of curing time

PAGE 107

107 Table 6 6 Flexural toughness of concrete containing Recycled asphalt Pavement Mixture Type Number RAP (%) W/C Average F lexural T oughness of RAP C oncrete (lb in/in 3 ) Curing Time (days) 7 14 28 90 Con trol 1 0 0.45 / / 0.13 0.08 2 0 0.50 / / 0.18 0.12 3 0 0.55 / / 0.19 0.06 RAP 1 4 20 0.50 / / / 0.27 5 40 0.50 / / / 0.42 6 70 0.50 / / / 0.55 7 100 0.50 / / / 0.76 RAP 2 4 20 0.50 0.21 0.26 0.18 0.27 5 40 0.50 0.23 0.30 0 .33 0.33 6 70 0.50 0.68 0.58 0.42 0.42 7 100 0.50 0.47 0.75 0.74 0.67 RAP 3 4 20 0.50 0.26 0.21 0.26 0.32 5 40 0.50 0.42 0.40 0.26 0.45 6 70 0.50 0.57 0.43 0.33 0.48 7 100 0.50 1.03 0.51 0.69 0.48 RAP 4 4 20 0.50 0.18 0.29 0 .31 0.26 5 40 0.50 0.26 0.21 0.43 0.40 6 70 0.50 0.45 0.45 0.50 0.37 7 100 0.50 0.42 0.42 0.73 0.61 Figure 6 12 Stress strain pl ot for concrete containing RAP 3 at 14 days of curing time.

PAGE 108

108 Figure 6 13 Stress strain plot for concrete containing RAP 4 at 28 days of curing time Figure 6 14 Stress strain plot for concrete containing RAP 1 at 90 days of curing time

PAGE 109

109 Figure 6 15 90 days of curing time. 6.3.6 Splitting Tensi le Strength Test Results Table 6 7 summarizes the average splitting tensile strength of all the concrete mixtures evaluated in this research study. For all the concrete mixtures there is a reduction in the splitting tensile strength with increase in t he percentage of RAP in the mix, as shown in F igure 6 16 Figure 6 17 shows the development of splitting tensile strength at different curing times with respect to 28 day curing time. For concrete mixtures with RAP 4 there was no development in splitting te nsile strength at different curing times. In general other mixtures did show development in splitting tensile strength at different curing times. Figure 6 18 shows the percentage reduction in the splitting tensile st rength of concrete mixtures containing RAP at 90 days of curing with respect to normal concrete

PAGE 110

110 The maximum reduction in splitting tensile strength was around 60% for concrete mixtures with 100% RAP. The trends in the reduction of splitting tensile strength were very similar for the concrete mixtures with different types of RAP. The standard deviation was determined from three concrete specimens for each concrete mix at different curing times. For the concrete mixtures without RAP the maximum standard deviation for splitting tensile strengt h was 80 psi. For concrete mixtures with RAP 1, RAP 2, RAP 3 and RAP 4 the maximum standard deviation for splitting tensile strength was 37 psi, 46 psi, 34 psi and 54 psi, respectively. In general the standard deviations of splitting tensile strength for all the concrete mixtures were low. Table 6 7 Splitting Tensile Strength of concrete containing Recycled asphalt Pavement Mixture Type Number RAP (%) W/C Average Spl itting Tensile Strength of RAP C oncrete (psi) Curing Time (days) 7 14 28 90 Control 1 0 0.45 490 592 664 658 2 0 0.50 473 525 517 562 3 0 0.55 418 438 510 537 RAP 1 4 20 0.50 380 400 452 455 5 40 0.50 333 368 370 396 6 70 0.50 249 270 303 265 7 100 0.50 188 202 190 244 RAP 2 4 20 0.50 427 42 8 442 476 5 40 0.50 314 352 370 413 6 70 0.50 232 262 258 253 7 100 0.50 198 227 218 217 RAP 3 4 20 0.50 390 432 400 445 5 40 0.50 334 322 351 369 6 70 0.50 257 282 273 291 7 100 0.50 204 206 202 241 RAP 4 4 20 0.50 369 39 0 451 433 5 40 0.50 308 355 371 348 6 70 0.50 248 305 336 280 7 100 0.50 224 230 220 209

PAGE 111

111 Figure 6 16 Splitting tensile strength of concrete mixtures containing RAP

PAGE 112

112 Figure 6 17 Development of splitting tensile strength at different curing time s compared to 28 days curing time

PAGE 113

113 Figure 6 18 Percentage reduction in splitting tensile strength at 90 days of curing

PAGE 114

114 6.3.7 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Test Results Table 6 8 summarizes the average coefficient of thermal expansion of all the conc rete mixtures evaluated in this research study. The coefficient of thermal expansion increased as the percentage of RAP increased in the concrete mixtures. Due to some apparent outliers in the data, the outlier data were removed and replaced with corrected values based on interpolation from the more reliable data. Table 6 9 shows the adjusted coefficient of thermal expansion. For concrete mixtures without RAP the coefficient of thermal expansion was very low at 14 days curing time, compared with those at 7 days, 28 days, and 90 days. Therefore the 14 days coefficient of thermal expansion was adjusted by using the average value between 7 days and 28 days. For concrete mixtures with RAP the coefficient of thermal expansion increases as the percentage RAP incr eases. Therefore the coefficient of thermal expansion was adjusted by using the average value between two mixtures with different RAP replacement, such that the coefficient of thermal expansion increased with the increasing percentage of RAP. Figure 6 19 shows the adjusted coefficient of thermal expansion for concrete mixtures with RAP 1. The coefficient of thermal expansion for 20% RAP 1 was higher than the 40% RAP 1 mix. Therefore, the coefficient of thermal expansion for 20% RAP 1 was adjusted by using the average value between 0% RAP and 40% RAP 1. Similar procedure was followed for all other RAP mixtures as shown in Figure 6 20, Figure 6 21, and F igure 6 22. Figure 6 23 through Figure 6 26 show the adjusted coefficient of thermal expansion for concre s The coefficient of thermal expansion for concrete mixtures with RAP 4 was low, compared to

PAGE 115

115 the other mixtures. This adjusted coefficient of thermal expansion values will be used for stress a na lysis as presented in Chapter 7. Table 6 8 Actual Coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete containing Recycled Asphalt Pavement Mixture Type Number RAP (%) W/C Average Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of RAP C oncrete (10 6 /F) Curing Time ( days) 7 14 28 90 Control 1 0 0.45 4.56 4.86 4.84 3.62 2 0 0.50 4.64 3.68 4. 35 4. 04 3 0 0.55 / 4.49 3.97 3.47 RAP 1 4 20 0.50 4. 88 5.00 4. 89 4. 88 5 40 0.50 4.8 7 4.85 4.85 4.80 6 70 0.50 5.2 7 4.93 5. 45 5. 15 7 100 0.50 5.4 9 5. 92 6. 26 5. 87 RAP 2 4 20 0.50 4.58 4.69 4.63 4.76 5 40 0.50 4.87 4.86 4.93 5.35 6 70 0.50 5.46 4.73 4.83 4.76 7 100 0.50 5.32 5.37 5.61 5.31 RAP 3 4 20 0.50 4.80 4.41 4.70 / 5 40 0.50 4.35 4.41 4.57 / 6 70 0.50 4.73 4.35 4.83 / 7 100 0.50 4.81 5.13 5.05 4.13 RAP 4 4 20 0.50 4.45 4.87 4.33 5.00 5 40 0.50 4.61 4.32 4.36 4.52 6 70 0.50 4.79 4.08 / 4.30 7 100 0.50 4.84 4.88 4.50 4.72 Figure 6 19 Adjusted coefficient of thermal expansion for RAP 1 at 90 days of c uring time

PAGE 116

116 Table 6 9 Adjusted c oefficient of thermal expansion of concrete containing Recycled Asphalt Pavement Mixture Type Number RAP (%) W/C Average Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of RAP C oncrete (10 6 /F) Curing Time (days) 7 14 28 9 0 Control 1 0 0.45 4.56 4.86 4.84 3.62 2 0 0.50 4.64 4.50 4.35 4.04 3 0 0.55 / 4.49 3.97 3.47 RAP 1 4 20 0.50 4.76 4.75 4.6 4.42 5 40 0.50 4.87 4.85 4.85 4.8 6 70 0.50 5.27 4.93 5.46 5.16 7 100 0.50 5.49 5.92 6.26 5.87 RAP 2 4 20 0.50 4.75 4.69 4.63 4.4 5 40 0.50 4.87 4.86 4.93 4.58 6 70 0.50 5.1 5.12 5.27 4.76 7 100 0.50 5.32 5.37 5.61 5.31 RAP 3 4 20 0.50 4.8 4.89 4.46 4.3 5 40 0.50 4.76 5.01 4.57 4.57 6 70 0.50 4.73 5.07 4.83 4.83 7 100 0.50 4.79 5 .13 5.07 4.6 RAP 4 4 20 0.50 4.71 4.87 4.57 4.52 5 40 0.50 4.75 4.87 4.54 4.52 6 70 0.50 4.79 4.88 4.53 4.62 7 100 0.50 4.84 4.88 4.51 4.72 Figure 6 20 Adjusted coefficient of thermal expansion for RAP 2 at 90 days of curing time

PAGE 117

117 F igure 6 21 Adjusted coefficient of thermal expansion for RAP 3 at 90 days of curing time Figure 6 22 Adjusted coefficient of thermal expansion for RAP 4 at 90 days of curing time

PAGE 118

118 Figure 6 23 Coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete mixtures cont aining RAP 1 Figure 6 24 Coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete mixtures containing RAP 2

PAGE 119

119 Figure 6 25 Coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete mixtures containing RAP 3 Figure 6 26 Coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete mixtures co ntaining RAP 4

PAGE 120

120 6.3.8 Drying Shrinkage Test Results Table 6 10 summarizes the average shrinkage strain values for all the concrete mixtures evaluated i n this research study. Figure 6 27 through F igure 6 34 show the percent length change for different RAP t ypes at different curing time. The percent length was determined by multiplying the actual shrinkage strain reading by 100. The positive value for length change indicates that the concrete specimen has shrinked, and the negative value indicates that the co ncrete specimen has expanded. Figure 6 27 through F igure 6 30 show the percent length change for the concrete specimens when air cured. For concrete mixtures with no RAP the shrinkage rate was very high at the initial curing time, but the rate was reduced in the later stages of curing time. In general the shrinkage of concrete mixtures increased as the percentage of RAP in the mix increased, and for concrete mixtures with 100% RAP the drying shri nkage was very high compared with all other mixtures Tabl e 6 11 shows the shrinkage strain of concrete mixtures after they were moist cured. For concrete mixtures with no RAP there was shrinkage in the concrete specimens at the initial stage of curing time, but at the later stage it underwent some expansion For mixtures with RAP 1, the concre te specimens underwent expansion in the initial curing time. After 28 days t he specimens did not undergo much len gth change as shown in F igure 6 31 For mixtures with RAP 2, 20% RAP mix and 4 0% RAP mix speci mens underwen t shrinkage till 14 days of curing time. After 14 days the specimens underwent some expansion as shown in F igure 6 32 For mixture s with RAP 3, all the mixtures underwent some expansion as shown in F igure 6 33 For

PAGE 121

121 mixtures with RAP 4 all the mixtures un derwent very little expansion as shown in F igure 6 34 In general the concrete specimens with RAP when moist cured undergo shrinkage or expansion rapidly till 28 days of curing time, and then the specimens undergo very little length change. Table 6 10 Drying shrinkage strain of concrete containing recycled asphalt pavement after air curing Mixture Type Number RAP (%) W/C Average Drying Shrinkage S train (10 6 ) Curing Time (days) 7 14 28 90 Control 1 0 0.45 55 240 260 430 2 0 0.50 130 243 250 265 3 0 0.55 85 90 100 240 RAP 1 4 20 0.50 100 170 235 500 5 40 0.50 75 145 250 450 6 70 0.50 75 125 230 490 7 100 0.50 185 300 520 905 RAP 2 4 20 0.50 115 290 250 390 5 40 0.50 200 290 200 370 6 70 0.50 140 180 235 460 7 100 0.50 190 190 350 680 RAP 3 4 20 0.50 123 220 340 480 5 40 0.50 170 280 395 510 6 70 0.50 210 360 510 710 7 100 0.50 280 450 660 870 RAP 4 4 20 0.50 130 265 360 430 5 40 0.50 170 310 470 600 6 70 0.50 175 325 450 640 7 100 0.50 360 590 840 1160 Note Positive value is shrinkage and negative value is shrinkage

PAGE 122

1 22 Table 6 11 Drying shrinkage strain of concrete containing recycled asphalt pavement after moisture curing Mixture Type Number RAP (%) W/C Average Drying Shrinkage S train ( 10 6 ) Curing Time (days) 7 14 28 90 Control 1 0 0.45 15 150 50 40 2 0 0.50 90 30 57 60 3 0 0.55 100 140 195 140 RAP 1 4 20 0.50 50 55 75 45 5 40 0.50 97 120 85 70 6 70 0.50 25 5 245 305 225 7 100 0.50 135 195 205 240 RAP 2 4 20 0.50 135 210 45 25 5 40 0.50 45 70 140 180 6 70 0.50 30 250 260 260 7 100 0.50 310 290 320 320 RAP 3 4 20 0.50 50 45 60 25 5 40 0.50 50 40 45 70 6 70 0.50 90 110 100 90 7 100 0.50 20 30 35 30 RAP 4 4 20 0.50 60 35 30 50 5 40 0.50 120 85 45 70 6 70 0.50 75 45 55 70 7 100 0.50 35 0 20 30 Note Positive value is shrinkage and negative value is expansion Fi gure 6 27 Drying shrinkage of concrete mixtures with RAP 1 after air curing

PAGE 123

123 Figure 6 28 Drying shrinkage of concrete mixtures with RAP 2 after air curing. Figure 6 29 Drying shrinkage of concrete mixtures with RAP 3 after air curing

PAGE 124

124 Figure 6 30 D rying shrinkage of concrete mixtures with RAP 4 after air curing Figure 6 31 Drying shrinkage of concrete mixtures with RAP 1 after moisture curing

PAGE 125

125 Figure 6 32 Drying shrinkage of concrete mixtures with RAP 2 after moisture curing Figure 6 33 Dryi ng shrinkage of concrete mixtures with RAP 3 after moisture curing

PAGE 126

126 Figure 6 34 Drying shrinkage of concrete mixtures with RAP 4 after moisture curing. 6.4 Relationship among the Concrete Properties 6.4.1 Relationship between Compressive Strength and Fle xural Strength Compressive strength of the concrete is one of the important properties used in the structural design. The relationship between compressive strength and flexural strength is very important for concrete pavements, since the performance of con crete pavement is highly dependent on the flexural strength of the concrete. The relationship between compressive strength and flexural strength was dev eloped and plotted as shown in F igure 6 35 Regression equation was developed to best fit the relationsh ip between compressive strength (f c ) and flexural strength (R). The ACI equation is also used for comparison as shown on the plot. From the plot it can be seen that the coefficient of the ACI equation is slightly lower for regular concrete as compared wit h the one predicted for RAP concrete based on the experimental data in this study.

PAGE 127

127 Therefore based on the experimental data of this research study the ACI equation will underestimate the flexural strength of RAP concrete. Figure 6 35 Relationship betw een compressive strength and flexural strength 6.4.2 Relationship between Compressive Strength and Modulus of Elasticity The modulus of elasticity is an important material property that affects the stress/strain behavior of concrete slab, and also an impor tant input to program s for concrete pavement analysis, such as FEACONS and MEPDG. The relationship of compressive strength and modulus of elasticity based on the experimental data in this research study is plotted and compared to the ACI equation as

PAGE 128

128 shown in the F igure 6 36 It shows that as the compressive strength of the concrete containing RAP decreases, the rate of decrease in the modulus of elasticity is even higher, when compared with the normal concrete. Therefore the ACI equation will overestimate the elastic modulus and will not be suitable to predict the modulus of elasticity of concrete containing RAP especially for concrete mixtures containing higher percentage of RAP. Figure 6 36 Relationship between compressive strength and elastic modulus

PAGE 129

129 6.4.3 Relationship between Compressive Strength and Splitting Tensile Strength The relationship between compressive strength and splitting tensile st rength was plotted as shown in F igure 6 37 The regression equation was developed to best fit the experime ntal data for this study, and to establish relationship between compressive strength (f c ) and splitting tensile strength (f ct ) of concrete containing RAP. Figure 6 37 Relationship between compressive strength and splitting tensile strength

PAGE 130

130 6.4.4 Relati onship between Splitting Tensile Strength and Flexural Strength The relationship between splitting tensile strength and flexural st rength was plotted as shown in F igure 6 38 The regression equation was developed to best fit the experimental data for this study, and to establish relationship between splitting tensile strength (f ct ) and flexural strength (R) of concrete containing RAP. Figure 6 38 Relationship between splitting tensile strength and flexural strengt h

PAGE 131

131 6.5 Summary of Findings The compressi ve strength, modulus of elasticity, flexural strength, and splitting tensile strength decreased as the percentage of RAP increased in the concrete mix. The reduction in flexural strength in the concrete containing RAP was 10% to 20% lower than the correspo nding reduction in compressive strength and splitting tensile strength of concrete containing RAP. The rate of reduction in modulus of elasticity in the concrete containing RAP was much higher than the corresponding reduction in compressive strength The d rying shrinkage, coefficient of thermal expansion increased as the percentage of RAP in the concrete increased. RAP 4 which consisted of limestone, granite, and polymer modified binder produced concrete mixtures with lower coefficient of thermal expansion and much The failure strain and toughness of concrete increased as the percentage of RA P increased in the mix. The ACI equation underestimates the flexural strength of concrete mixtures containing RAP, based on the results of concrete mixtures evaluated in this research study. The ACI equation will tend to overestimate the modulus of elasticity and cannot be used to estimate the modulus of elasticity of concr ete mixtures containing RAP, based on the results of concrete mixtures evaluated in this research study.

PAGE 132

132 CHAPTER 7 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL PERFORMANCE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT SLABS 7.1 Introduction Using the measured properties of concrete containing RAP analysis was performed using FEACONS IV program and the mechanistic empirical design guide program (MEPDG) to determine how each of the concrete mixtures containing different percentages of RAP, and different type of RAP, would perform if it were used in a typical concrete pavement in Florida This chapter presents the results of these analyses. 7.2 Analysis Using FEACONS IV Program Using the measured elastic modulus and the coefficient of thermal expansion to model the concrete, analysis was perform ed to deter mine the maximum stresses in a typical concrete slab if it were under a critical combination of load and temperature condition. Prior study has shown that a 22 kip axle load applied at the middle of the slab edge when there was a temperature d ifferential of +20 F in the concrete slab represents a critical loading condition in Florida. Thus, this loading condition was used in the analysis. The FEACONS IV (Finite Element Analysis of Concrete Slabs, version IV) program was used to perform th e stress analysis. The FEACONS program was previously developed at the University of Florida for FDOT for the analysis of PCC pavements subjected to load and thermal effects, and has demonstrated to be a fairly effective and reliable tool for this type of analysis. The following parameters were used to model the concrete pavement: Slab thickness = 12 ; slab length = 15 ; slab width = 12 ; Modulus of subgrade reaction k s =

PAGE 133

133 0.4 kci; edge stiffness, k e = 30 ksi; and Joint linear stiffness, k l = 500 ksi; join t torsion stiffness k t = 1000 k in/in. Critical stress analyses were performed using the properties of the concrete containing different percentages of RAP at different curing times. The maximum stress in the concrete slab under the critical condition was first computed. The maximum computed stress was divided by the flexural strength of the concrete to obtain the stress to flexural strength ratio, which can indicate the potential performance of the concrete in service. According to fatigue theory, a low stress to strength ratio would indicate a higher number of load repetitions to failure and a potential better performance for concrete pavements in field. The results of the stress analysis for all the concrete mixtures evaluated in this research s tudy are summarized in T able s 7 2 through 7 5 for d ifferent curing times. For concrete mixtures with RAP there was no reduction in stress to strength ratio at initial curing time of 7 days and 14 days. However, at 28 days and 90 days the stress to strength ratio for concrete mixtures with RAP was comparable to that of conventional mix, and some even lower. For concrete mixtures with RAP the stress strength ratio decreased as the percentage of RAP increased in the mix. In general concrete mixtures with RAP 1 and RAP 4 had lower stress strength ratio, when compared with RAP 2 and RAP 3 con crete mixtures at 28 days and 90 days of curing time Figure 7 1 and Figure 7 2 show the stress to strength ratio at 28 days and 90 days of curing time. For the concrete mixtures with stress strength ratio less than 0.5, it would take infinite number of load cycles for concrete to fail At 28 days of curing time, concrete mixtures with 40%, 70%, and 100% RAP 1 and RAP 4 had lower stress strength ratio, compared

PAGE 134

134 to other mixtures w ith RAP. At 90 days of curing time, concrete mixtures with 40%, 70%, and 100% RAP 1 and RAP 4 had stress strength ratio equal to 0.5 and even lower. This shows that concrete containing RAP has the potential to perform well in service. 7.3 Analysis Using M echanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide The mechanistic empirical pavement design guide (MEPDG) was used to assess the potential performance of concrete pavements, if concrete containing RAP were to be used in a typical concrete pavement in Florida. The refore a jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) with a design life of 25 years was used in the analysis. Table 7 1 shows the performance criteria used in the MEPDG model. Table 7 1 Performance criteria used in the MEPDG model Criteria Limit Reliability I nitial IRI (in/mile) 58 Terminal IRI (in/mile) 160 90 Transverse cracking (% slabs cracked) 10 90 Mean joint faulting (in) 0.12 90 Hierarchy level 1 was used for the input parameters for the analysis. Default values were used for traffic volume adjus tment and vehicle class distribution. Traffic growth factor function was considered linear with a growth rate of 2%. Table 7 5 shows the traffic information used in the model. The climate data was acquired from the program for the conditions in Gainesville Florida. The pavement structure to be analyzed consisted of four layers with a 10 inch thick concrete slab as layer 1. Layer 2 was 4 inch thick existing asphalt concrete. Layer 3 was a 12 inch compacted subgrade (A 3), and layer 4 was modeled as a semi i nfinite natural subgrade (A 2 4). All the details of the input file used are provided in the appendix C. (Ping, W.V. and Kampmann, R., 2008)

PAGE 135

135 Table 7 2 Results of Critical Stress Analysis Using Concrete Properties at 7 Days Curing Mixture Type Number Perce ntage RAP W/C Modulus of Elasticity (ksi) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion ( 10 6 /F) Unit Weight (lbs/ft 3 ) Computed Maximum Stress (psi) Measured Ultimate Flexural Strength (psi) Computed Stress to Flexural Strength ratio Control 2 0 0.50 3970 4.64 140 331 630 0.53 RAP 1 4 20 0.50 3150 4.76 139 296 496 0.60 5 40 0.50 2530 4.87 139 266 471 0.56 6 70 0.50 1700 5.27 135 219 382 0.57 7 100 0.50 1120 5.49 130 174 301 0.58 RAP 2 4 20 0.50 3240 4.75 139 300 517 0.58 5 40 0.50 2540 4.87 137 267 465 0.57 6 70 0.50 1650 5.10 136 211 380 0.55 7 100 0.50 1250 5.32 135 183 334 0.55 RAP 3 4 20 0.50 3420 4.80 139 311 525 0.59 5 40 0.50 2620 4.76 138 267 471 0.57 6 70 0.50 1770 4.73 137 213 409 0.52 7 100 0.50 1160 4.79 132 169 332 0.51 RAP 4 4 20 0.50 3540 4.71 139 315 564 0.56 5 40 0.50 2520 4.75 138 262 460 0.57 6 70 0.50 1750 4.79 136 214 368 0.58 7 100 0.50 1160 4.84 132 169 356 0.47

PAGE 136

136 Table 7 3 Results of Critical Stress Analysis Using Concrete Properties at 14 Days Curing Mixture Type Number Percentage RAP W/C Modulus of Elasticity (ksi) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion ( 10 6 /F) Unit Weight (lbs/ft 3 ) Computed Maximum Stress (psi) Measured Ultimate Flexural Strength (psi) Comput ed Stress to Flexural Strength ratio Control 2 0 0.50 4220 4.50 140 343 666 0.52 RAP 1 4 20 0.50 3350 4.75 139 307 540 0.57 5 40 0.50 2800 4.85 139 281 513 0.5 5 6 70 0.50 1770 4.93 135 218 420 0.52 7 100 0.50 1250 5.92 130 19 7 343 0.57 RAP 2 4 20 0.50 3460 4.69 139 311 598 0.52 5 40 0.50 2710 4.86 137 275 482 0.57 6 70 0.50 1750 5.12 136 219 385 0.57 7 100 0.50 1230 5.37 135 183 362 0.51 RAP 3 4 20 0.50 3500 4.89 139 319 533 0.60 5 40 0.50 267 0 5.01 138 277 475 0.58 6 70 0.50 1890 5.07 137 227 389 0.58 7 100 0.50 1280 5.13 132 184 324 0.57 RAP 4 4 20 0.50 3330 4.87 139 309 551 0.56 5 40 0.50 2620 4.87 138 272 464 0.57 6 70 0.50 1770 4.88 136 215 409 0.53 7 100 0.50 1250 4 .88 132 177 354 0.50

PAGE 137

137 Table 7 4 Results of Critical Stress Analysis Using Concrete Properties at 28 Days Curing Mixture Type Number Percentage RAP W/C Modulus of Elasticity (ksi) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion ( 10 6 /F) Unit Weight (lbs/ft 3 ) Computed Maximum Stress (psi) Measured Ultimate Flexural Strength (psi) Computed Stress to Flexural Strength ratio Control 2 0 0.50 4430 4.35 140 3 41 686 0.5 0 RAP 1 4 20 0.50 3450 4. 60 139 30 7 563 0.54 5 40 0.50 2990 4. 8 5 139 29 2 575 0.5 1 6 70 0.50 1820 5. 46 135 2 32 453 0. 51 7 100 0.50 1260 6.26 130 20 6 394 0.5 2 RAP 2 4 20 0.50 3690 4. 63 139 3 20 583 0.55 5 40 0.50 2770 4. 93 137 2 81 517 0.5 4 6 70 0.50 1840 5.27 136 22 8 410 0.5 5 7 100 0.50 1370 5. 61 135 19 8 370 0.5 3 RAP 3 4 20 0.50 3610 4. 46 139 31 0 570 0.5 4 5 40 0.50 2800 4. 57 138 27 2 479 0.57 6 70 0.50 1890 4. 83 137 22 3 386 0.5 7 7 100 0.50 1240 5. 0 7 132 17 9 342 0.52 RAP 4 4 20 0.50 3620 4. 57 139 31 4 597 0.5 3 5 40 0.50 2720 4. 5 4 138 2 6 8 514 0.5 2 6 70 0.50 1780 4. 5 3 136 210 428 0.49 7 100 0.50 1190 4. 51 132 1 68 358 0.4 7

PAGE 138

138 Table 7 5 Results of Critical Stress Analysis Using Concrete Properties at 90 Days Curing Mixture Type Number Percentage RAP W/C Modulus of Elasticity (ksi) Coe fficient of Thermal Expansion ( 10 6 /F) Unit Weight (lbs/ft 3 ) Computed Maximum Stress (psi) Measured Ultimate Flexural Strength (psi) Computed Stress to Flexural Strength ratio Control 2 0 0.50 4440 4.04 140 333 694 0.48 RAP 1 4 2 0 0.50 3670 4.42 139 311 520 0.60 5 40 0.50 3000 4.80 139 292 586 0.50 6 70 0.50 2000 5.16 135 239 491 0.48 7 100 0.50 1260 5.87 130 196 405 0.48 RAP 2 4 20 0.50 3880 4.40 139 320 633 0.50 5 40 0.50 2870 4.58 137 277 520 0.53 6 70 0. 50 1970 4.76 136 227 414 0.55 7 100 0.50 1380 5.31 135 194 370 0.52 RAP 3 4 20 0.50 3780 4.30 139 311 594 0.52 5 40 0.50 2800 4.57 138 272 516 0.53 6 70 0.50 2110 4.83 137 238 441 0.54 7 100 0.50 1230 4.60 132 171 360 0.48 RAP 4 4 20 0.50 3670 4.52 139 314 620 0.51 5 40 0.50 2830 4.52 138 274 552 0.50 6 70 0.50 2010 4.62 136 227 473 0.48 7 100 0.50 1330 4.72 132 181 415 0.44

PAGE 139

139 Figure 7 1 Stress strength ratio of concrete mixtures containing RAP at 28 days of curi ng time Figure 7 2 Stress strength ratio of concrete mixtures containing RAP at 90 days of curing tim e

PAGE 140

140 Table 7 6 Traffic information used in the model Initial two way AADT 7000 Number of lanes in design direction 2 Percen t of trucks in design directi on (%) 50 Percent of trucks in design lane (%) 95 Operational speed (mph) 70 It is to be pointed out that the MEPDG model is semi empirical in nature. The predicted pavement performance is based in part on the performance data of past pavements of simi lar characteristic. Since there have not been performance data on pavements made with concrete containing RAP, the reliability of the predicted performance is questionable. The analysis was run just to see what the MEPDG model would predict based on the in put concrete properties. Table s 7 7 and 7 8 show the predicted international roughness index (IRI) and mean joint faulting at the end of 25 year life The IRI defines the characteristic of the longitudinal profile of a traveled wheel track and provides a m easure of roughness of the pavement. All the concrete pavements evaluated, which uses concrete with different amounts of RAP pass the IRI criterion with a high level of reliability and a very low level of distress. All the concrete pavements evaluated pass the performance criteria for mean joint faulting. The prediction on transverse cracking is highly sensitive to the coefficient of thermal expansion and concrete strength. For almost all the pavements using concrete mixtures with RAP the predicted transve rse cracking was very high, except for the c oncrete mixtures with 40% RAP 1 and 40% RAP 4 as shown in T able 7 9 For concrete mixtures with 70% and 100% RAP the measured strength was lower than the minimum strength recommended by the MEPFG program. Therefo re, for concrete mixtures with 70% and 100% RAP the MEPDG analysis was not performed

PAGE 141

141 Table 7 7 Predicted terminal IRI from MEPDG of pavements using concrete containing RAP Mix T ype No RAP (%) Distress T arget Reliability T arget Distress P redicted Reliabil ity P redicted Acceptable Control 2 0 1 60 90 67.5 99.99 Pass RAP 1 4 20 1 60 90 94 97.53 Pass 5 40 1 60 90 69.6 99.99 Pass RAP 2 4 20 1 60 90 64.2 99.99 Pass 5 40 1 60 90 79.2 99.74 Pass RAP 3 4 20 1 60 90 74.3 99.93 Pass 5 40 1 60 90 75.7 99.90 Pass RAP 4 4 20 1 60 90 89.3 99.50 Pass 5 40 1 60 90 83.3 99.86 Pass Table 7 8 Predicted mean terminal joint faulting from MEPDG of pavements using concrete containing RAP Mix T ype No RAP (%) Distress T arget Reliability T arget Distr ess P redicted Reliability P redicted Acceptable Control 2 0 0 .12 90 0.018 99.99 Pass RAP 1 4 20 0.12 90 0.033 99.83 Pass 5 40 0.12 90 0.021 99.99 Pass RAP 2 4 20 0.12 90 0.01 99.99 Pass 5 40 0.12 90 0.032 99.87 Pass RAP 3 4 20 0.12 90 0.025 99.97 Pass 5 40 0.12 90 0.025 99.97 Pass RAP 4 4 20 0.12 90 0.04 99.48 Pass 5 40 0.12 90 0.03 99.92 Pass Table 7 9 Predicted terminal transverse cracking from MEPDG of pavement using concrete containing RAP Mix T ype No RAP (%) Di stress T arget Reliability T arget Distress P redicted Reliability P redicted Acceptable Control 2 0 10 90 0.7 97.7 Pass RAP 1 4 20 10 90 49.9 0.04 Fail 5 40 10 90 0.8 97.23 Pass RAP 2 4 20 10 90 14.2 31.04 Fail 5 40 10 90 27.6 3.89 Fail RAP 3 4 20 10 90 18.6 17.03 Fail 5 40 10 90 32.8 1.49 Fail RAP 4 4 20 10 90 14.3 53.32 Fail 5 40 10 90 5.3 92.77 Pass

PAGE 142

142 7.4 Summary of Findings The results of critical stress analysis show that the maximum stress decreases as the per centage of RAP increases in the mix, due to decrease in the elastic modulus of the concrete. The maximum st ress to flexural strength ratio for concrete mixtures containing RAP was comparable to that of the conventional mix, and some even lower at 28 days a nd 90 days of curing time. Some c oncrete mixtures with RAP did show better combination of low modulus of elasticity, low coefficient of thermal expansion, and adequate flexural strength which shows concrete mixtures with RAP have a potential to improve th e performance of concrete pavement in service. The concrete mixtures with RAP showed better performance on IRI and mean joint faulting compared to transverse cracking, according to the analyses with MEPDG. However, these analysis results might not be accu rate, since there have not been performance data on pavements made with concrete containing RAP.

PAGE 143

143 CHAPTER 8 DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA FOR RAP CONCRETE Dev elopment of Stress Strength Ratio Charts The modulus of elasticity, flexural strength, and coefficient of thermal expansion for concrete mixtures containing RAP ranged from 1 10 6 psi to 4 10 6 psi, 300 psi to 650 psi, and 4.5 10 6 / F to 6.5 10 6 / F, respectively. Critical stress analysis was performed on typical concrete pavement slabs using concrete with different combinations of coefficient of thermal expansion modulus of ela sticity, and flexural strength within these ranges. The maximum stress in concrete caused by a 22 kip axial load applied to the center edge of a 12 inch slab with a temperature differential of 20 F was calculated using the FEACONS program. The maximum stress to flexural strength ratios were calculated and presented in Table 8 1 through T able 8 4. Using these values t he stress strength ratio chart w as developed as shown in F igure 8 1 through F igure 8 4. The combination of flexural strength and elastic modulus of concrete would produce a stress to strength ratio of 0.5 and 0.6 for different values of coefficient of thermal expansion. Figure s 8 1 through 8 4 can be used f or concrete mixtures with CTE ranging from 4.25 10 6 / F to 4.75 10 6 / F, 4.75 10 6 / F to 5.25 10 6 / F, 5.25 10 6 / F to 5.75 10 6 / F, and 5.75 10 6 / F to 6.25 10 6 / F, respectively. The results of critical stress analysis for all the concrete mixtures evaluated at 90 day curing time are plotted on these charts This chart can be used to predict the performance of concrete mixtures c ont aining RAP by knowing the flexural strength, elastic modulus and coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete.

PAGE 144

144 Figure 8 1 shows the stress strength chart for concrete mixtures with a coefficient of thermal expansion of 4.5 10 6 / F. According to the chart concrete mixtures with 40%, 70%, an d 100% RAP gave a lower stress strength ratio than t he conventional mix. Though the coefficient of thermal expansion increases as the percentage of RA P increases, the stress strength ratio f or concrete containing RAP is still lower due to the reduction in elastic modul us of the concrete as shown in F igure s 8 2 through 8 4. This shows tha t there is a potential for the improvement in the performance of concrete pavement containing RAP. According to this analysis, the optimal concrete mixture for concrete pavement is not necessarily, a concrete with a high flexural strength, but a concrete w ith a proper combination of low modulus of elasticity, low coefficient of thermal expansion, and adequate flexural strength. The f ollowing steps must be followed to use the stress strength ratio charts to determine an optimum concrete mix containing RAP fo r concrete pavement slabs: Determine the modulus of elasticity, flexural strength, and coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete mixtures containing RAP using the ASTM and AASHTO standards. Using the measured coefficient of thermal expansion, determine the appropriate stress strength ratio chart or table to use For example, for the concrete mixtures with CTE ranging from 4.25 10 6 / F to 4.75 10 6 / F, use the stress strength ratio chart or table with a CTE of 4.5 10 6 / F. From the appropriate stres s strength ratio chart or table determine the stress strength ratio for the particular concrete mix by interpolation using its measured modulus of elasticity, flexural strength, and coefficient of thermal expansion. The concrete mix with lowest stress str ength ratio should give the best potential performance as a pavement concrete

PAGE 145

145 Table 8 1 Stress analysis for concrete mixtures with a coefficient of thermal expansion of 4.5 10 6 / F MR (psi) E (ksi) 300 400 500 600 700 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion= 4.5 10 6 / F Stress to Strength Ratio 1000 0.51 0.38 0.30 0.25 0.22 2000 0.75 0.56 0.45 0.37 0.32 3000 0.94 0.71 0.56 0.47 0.40 4000 1.10 0.82 0.66 0.55 0.47 5000 1.23 0.92 0.74 0.62 0.53 Table 8 2 Stress analys is for concrete mixtures with a coefficient of thermal expansion of 5.0 10 6 / F MR (psi) E (ksi) 300 400 500 600 700 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion= 5.0 10 6 / F Stress to Strength Ratio 1000 0.53 0.40 0.32 0.26 0.23 2000 0.78 0.59 0.47 0.39 0.33 3000 0.99 0.74 0.59 0.50 0.42 4000 1.16 0.87 0.69 0.58 0.50 5000 1.30 0.98 0.78 0.65 0.56 Table 8 3 Stress analysis for concrete mixtures with a coefficient of thermal expansion of 5.5 10 6 / F MR (psi) E (ksi) 300 400 500 600 700 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion= 5.5 10 6 / F Stress to Strength Ratio 1000 0.54 0.40 0.32 0.27 0.23 2000 0.81 0.61 0.49 0.40 0.35 3000 1.03 0.77 0.62 0.51 0.44 4000 1.21 0.91 0.73 0.60 0.52 5000 1.37 1.03 0.82 0.68 0.58

PAGE 146

146 Table 8 4 Stress analysis for concrete mixtures with a coefficient of thermal expansion of 6.0 10 6 /F MR (psi) E (ksi) 300 400 500 600 700 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion= 6.0 10 6 / F Stress to Strength Ratio 1000 0.56 0.42 0.34 0.28 0.24 2000 0.85 0.64 0.51 0.43 0.37 3000 1.08 0.81 0.65 0.54 0.46 4000 1.28 0.96 0.77 0.64 0.55 5000 1.44 1.08 0.87 0.72 0.62 Figure 8 1. Stress strength ratio chart for concrete with a CTE of 4.5 10 6 / F

PAGE 147

147 Figure 8 2. Stress strength ratio chart for concrete with a CTE of 5.0 10 6 / F Figure 8 3. Stress strength ratio chart for concrete with a CTE of 5.5 10 6 / F

PAGE 148

148 Figure 8 4. Stress strength ratio chart for concrete with a CTE of 6.0 10 6 / F

PAGE 149

149 CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECO MMENDATIONS 9.1 Findings from This Study 9.1.1 Mechanical and Thermal Properties of Concrete Containing RAP The compressive strength, modulus of elasticity, splitting tensile strength, and flexural strength reduced as the percentage of RAP increased in the mix. The reduction in compressive strength was much higher than the corresponding reduction in splitting tensile strength and flexural strength. For the concrete mixtures with RAP the reduction in flexural strength is 10% to 20% lower than the splitting tensile strength and compressive strength. The rate of reduction in modulus of elasticity is much higher than the compressive st rength of the concrete containing RAP. The failure strain and toughness of concrete increases a s the percentage of RAP increases in the mix. The percentage of RAP increased in the mix. The ACI equations which relate compressive strength to the flexural strength and modulus of elasti city of concrete would underestimate the flexural strength and overestimate the elastic modulus of the concrete containing RAP. Regression equations relating compressive strength to flexural strength and elastic modulus of concrete con taining RAP were developed. 9.1.2 Combined Aggregate Gradation of Concrete Containing RAP The addition of recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) to concrete mixture improves the combined aggregate gradation of the mix. The intermediate size particles increase as the percentage of RAP increases in the mix. When concrete mixtures were proportioned with 40% fine aggregate of the total aggregate by volume, the conventional mix using #57 aggregate and fine silica sand had lack of particles retained on the #8 and #16

PAGE 150

150 s ieves. For the concrete mixtures with 20% RAP there was very little improvement in the combined gradation, when compared with the conventional mix. The mixtures with 40% RAP replacement showed improvement on the coarseness factor chart, individual percent retained chart, and 0.45 power chart of the gradation, when compared with the conventional mix. For the concrete mixtures with 70% and 100% RAP, the amount of intermediate size particles increased, with lack of very fine aggregate making the concrete mixtu res difficult to mix. This also indicates that concrete mixtures with RAP can resolve the problem of lack of particles on #8 and #16 sieves 9.1.3 Stress Analysis of Concrete Containing RAP The results of critical stress analysis show that the maximum stres ses in pavement decreases as the RAP content of the mix increases, due to decrease in the elastic modulus of the concrete. Though the flexural strength of the concrete with RAP was lower than the conventional concrete, the computed stress strength ratio fo r some of the RAP concrete was lower than that for the conventional concrete. This indicates that RAP concrete can have a potentially better performance than a conventional concrete when used in concrete pavement slabs. S tress strength ratio tables and ch arts were developed for convenient determination of stress strength ratios for different concrete mixes. The optimum concrete mix to be adopted for concrete pavement application is the mix with lowest stress strength ratio.

PAGE 151

151 9.2 Conclusions and Recommend ations It appears feasible that RAP can be used as an aggregate in concrete for pavement application. Recommended mix design procedure is as follows: Use RAP in the trial mix and t ry to combine the RAP to achieve the maximum density for the combined aggreg ate gradation of the concrete mixtures. Evaluate the flexural strength, modulus of elasticity, and coefficient of thermal expansion for concrete mixtures using the ASTM and AASHTO standards. ACI equation should not be used to determine these properties. Pe rform critical stress analysis as discussed in the section 7 2 of chapter 7. Determine the maximum critical stress and the stress to strength ratio for each concrete mix. Optimum mix is the one with lowest stress to strength ratio. In absence of the critic al stress analysis use the charts or tables as presented in chapter 8 for estimation of stress strength ratio. The results of the laboratory testing program and finite analysis indicate that the use of RAP as aggregate replacement in pavement concrete appe ars to be not only feasible but also offers the possibility of improving the performance of concrete pavement. It is recommended that further research work be done to conduct field test on concrete pavement slabs made with concrete containing RAP to evalua te the actual field performance of these concrete mixes.

PAGE 152

152 APPENDIX A STRENGT H TEST DATA T able A1 Compressive strength test results for concrete containing no RAP Specimen Number W/C RAP (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iamete r (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Compressive S trength (psi) 1 0.45 0 7 7.6630 4.0080 71660 5680 2 0.45 0 7 7.6538 4.0155 71130 5617 3 0.45 0 7 7.8473 4.0125 69650 5508 4 0.45 0 7 7.6026 4.0111 74240 5875 5 0.45 0 7 7.8166 4.0108 71560 5664 6 0.45 0 7 7.7812 4.0231 69300 5452 1 0.45 0 14 7.6422 4.0086 81360 6447 2 0.45 0 14 7.7405 3.9846 76730 6153 3 0.45 0 14 7.8096 4.0240 74990 5897 4 0.45 0 14 7.6963 4.0115 78590 6218 5 0.45 0 14 7.7783 4.0150 73630 5816 6 0.45 0 14 7.7297 4.0135 75890 5999 1 0.45 0 28 7.6057 4.0045 84510 6710 2 0.45 0 28 7.6756 4.0115 84100 6654 3 0.45 0 28 7.7182 4.0173 82400 6501 4 0.45 0 28 7.6830 4.0068 77900 6178 5 0.45 0 28 7.7606 4.0108 83600 6617 6 0.45 0 28 7.6452 4.0275 80650 6331 1 0.45 0 90 7.6885 4.0183 85910 6774 2 0.45 0 90 7.7500 4.0135 92020 7274 3 0.45 0 90 7.6964 4.0172 89380 7052 4 0.45 0 90 7.6870 4.0120 88940 7035 5 0.45 0 90 7.7560 4.0075 91480 7253 6 0.45 0 90 7.6975 4.0265 88030 6913 1 0.50 0 7 7.6492 3.9933 55940 4467 2 0.50 0 7 7.6597 3.9932 54 350 4340 3 0.50 0 7 7.6573 4.0073 51010 4044 4 0.50 0 7 7.6393 4.0015 55320 4399 5 0.50 0 7 7.6648 4.0228 51410 4045 6 0.50 0 7 7.7130 4.0130 53320 4216 1 0.50 0 14 7.6335 4.0100 56650 4486 2 0.50 0 14 7.8773 4.0155 63470 5012 3 0.50 0 14 7.6757 4.0 162 56570 4465

PAGE 153

153 Table A1 (Continued) Specimen Number W/C RAP (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Compressive S trength (psi) 4 0.50 0 14 7.6428 4.0117 63070 4990 1 0.50 0 28 7.5880 4.0120 67540 5343 2 0.50 0 28 7.5770 4.0026 66470 5283 3 0.50 0 28 7.5925 4.0203 69810 5499 4 0.50 0 28 7.5505 4.000 67100 5340 5 0.50 0 28 7.5642 4.0152 58640 4631 6 0.50 0 28 7.6168 4.0012 66650 5301 1 0.50 0 90 7.6915 4.0125 73060 5778 2 0.50 0 90 7.6305 4.0195 7423 0 5850 3 0.50 0 90 7.6538 4.0208 72960 5746 4 0.50 0 90 7.6690 3.9985 70840 5641 5 0.50 0 90 7.7050 4.0123 71770 5676 6 0.50 0 90 7.6870 4.0125 76110 6019 1 0.55 0 7 7.6275 4.0178 43140 3403 2 0.55 0 7 7.6585 4.0173 44890 3542 3 0.55 0 7 7.5850 4.0 147 40480 3198 4 0.55 0 7 7.6377 4.0053 43270 3435 5 0.55 0 7 7.6358 4.0115 42590 3370 6 0.55 0 7 7.7165 3.9965 46470 3705 1 0.55 0 14 7.6975 4.0183 45520 3590 2 0.55 0 14 7.5708 4.0148 46830 3700 3 0.55 0 14 7.6547 4.0053 52670 4181 4 0.55 0 14 7.7 012 4.0000 44210 3519 5 0.55 0 14 7.4673 4.0038 52470 4168 6 0.55 0 14 7.5933 4.0257 48600 3819 1 0.55 0 28 7.6247 4.0115 57240 4530 2 0.55 0 28 7.5697 3.9782 52930 4259 3 0.55 0 28 7.4713 4.0137 60750 4802 4 0.55 0 28 7.6156 3.9973 58500 4662 5 0.5 5 0 28 7.6055 3.9985 61620 4908 6 0.55 0 28 7.5830 4.0133 56150 4439 1 0.55 0 90 7.5625 4.0347 58510 4577 2 0.55 0 90 7.6063 4.0112 64120 5075

PAGE 154

154 Table A1 (Continued) Specimen Number W/C RAP (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iamet er (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Compressive S trength (psi) 3 0.55 0 90 7.6493 4.0068 66770 5296 4 0.55 0 90 7.5625 4.0415 57200 4459 5 0.55 0 90 7.6063 4.0085 62150 4925 6 0.55 0 90 7.6493 4.0123 57710 4565 Table A2 Compressive strength test results for concrete containing RAP 1 Specimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Compressive S trength (psi) 1 0.50 20 7 7.6328 4.0030 34610 2750 2 0.50 20 7 7.6972 4.0400 36080 2815 3 0.50 20 7 7 .9818 4.0450 36700 2856 4 0.50 20 7 7.6858 4.0098 37290 2953 5 0.50 20 7 7.7090 4.0075 36530 2896 6 0.50 20 7 7.6992 4.0255 37280 2929 1 0.50 20 14 7.6566 4.0068 41370 3281 2 0.50 20 14 7.6627 4.0162 43360 3423 3 0.50 20 14 7.6785 4.0070 42080 3337 4 0.50 20 14 7.6200 4.0117 42080 3329 5 0.50 20 14 7.7130 4.0342 40730 3186 6 0.50 20 14 7.6636 4.0310 40500 3174 1 0.50 20 28 7.6727 4.0145 43980 3475 2 0.50 20 28 7.7355 3.9800 44570 3583 3 0.50 20 28 7.6503 4.0220 45150 3554 4 0.50 20 28 7.6460 4. 0172 47160 3721 5 0.50 20 28 7.6750 3.9927 44990 3593 6 0.50 20 28 7.6582 3.9872 48880 3915 1 0.50 20 90 7.6075 4.0320 52800 4135 2 0.50 20 90 7.6832 4.0220 49230 3875 3 0.50 20 90 7.6857 4.0015 48070 3822 4 0.50 20 90 7.6408 4.0015 54040 4297 5 0.5 0 20 90 7.6335 4.0155 49960 3945 6 0.50 20 90 7.6590 4.0095 51230 4057 1 0.50 40 7 7.6598 4.0282 30520 2395 2 0.50 40 7 7.6230 4.0473 29530 2295

PAGE 155

155 Table A2 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iame ter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Compressive S trength (psi) 3 0.50 40 7 7.6172 4.0182 30180 2380 4 0.50 40 7 7.5580 4.0177 32710 2580 5 0.50 40 7 7.6342 4.0135 31290 2473 6 0.50 40 7 7.5010 4.0190 31160 2456 1 0.50 40 14 7.5482 4.0075 34300 2719 2 0.50 40 14 7.7132 4.0210 35800 2819 3 0.50 40 14 7.5852 4.0170 33480 2642 4 0.50 40 14 7.6308 4.0272 35920 2820 5 0.50 40 14 7.6318 3.9957 35980 2869 6 0.50 40 14 7.5980 4.0195 32910 2594 1 0.50 40 28 7.6067 4.0108 35630 2820 2 0.50 40 28 7.5890 4.0240 3769 0 2964 3 0.50 40 28 7.5108 4.0085 38250 3031 4 0.50 40 28 7.5502 4.0038 38410 3051 5 0.50 40 28 7.5295 4.0247 39000 3066 6 0.50 40 28 7.5445 4.0157 38970 3077 1 0.50 40 90 7.5583 4.0125 41020 3244 2 0.50 40 90 7.6700 4.0063 42220 3349 3 0.50 40 90 7 .6848 4.0083 42900 3400 4 0.50 40 90 7.7235 4.0225 42140 3316 5 0.50 40 90 7.5675 4.0225 43450 3419 6 0.50 40 90 7.7418 4.0200 42630 3359 1 0.50 70 7 7.6363 4.0166 20250 1598 2 0.50 70 7 7.6357 4.0020 19130 1521 3 0.50 70 7 7.5167 4.0140 20610 1629 4 0.50 70 7 7.6423 4.0105 21340 1689 5 0.50 70 7 7.6348 4.0128 21700 1716 6 0.50 70 7 7.6103 4.0153 20680 1633 1 0.50 70 14 7.5482 3.9996 22240 1770 2 0.50 70 14 7.5505 4.0121 22950 1815

PAGE 156

156 Table A2 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing P eri od (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Compressive S trength (psi) 3 0.50 70 14 7.5482 4.0190 22760 1794 4 0.50 70 14 7.6613 4.0103 23260 1841 5 0.50 70 14 7.6675 4.0093 22540 1785 6 0.50 70 14 7.6420 3.9860 23360 1872 1 0.50 70 28 7.5047 4.0035 25320 2011 2 0.50 70 28 7.6618 4.0023 23960 1904 3 0.50 70 28 7.6810 3.9905 27180 2173 4 0.50 70 28 7.6287 3.9910 23530 1881 5 0.50 70 28 7.5850 4.0158 27110 2140 6 0.50 70 28 7.7023 4.0057 24620 1954 1 0.50 70 90 7.6615 4.0 025 28380 2256 2 0.50 70 90 7.6667 4.0093 28270 2239 3 0.50 70 90 7.6350 4.0075 26580 2107 4 0.50 70 90 7.6580 3.9948 26350 2102 5 0.50 70 90 7.6620 4.0087 26240 2079 6 0.50 70 90 7.6780 4.0050 27410 2176 1 0.50 100 7 7.6025 3.9942 13580 1084 2 0.50 100 7 7.5552 4.0032 14150 1124 3 0.50 100 7 7.5840 3.9990 12210 972 4 0.50 100 7 7.4283 4.0168 12910 1019 5 0.50 100 7 7.5387 4.0043 14560 1156 6 0.50 100 7 7.6642 4.0092 9220 730 1 0.50 100 14 7.5238 3.9695 16840 1361 2 0.50 100 14 7.5117 4.0076 16 720 1325 3 0.50 100 14 7.6540 3.9976 15880 1265 4 0.50 100 14 7.5333 3.9992 14900 1186 5 0.50 100 14 7.6660 4.0108 16320 1292 6 0.50 100 14 7.6012 4.0168 16420 1296 1 0.50 100 28 7.4962 3.9900 18780 1502 2 0.50 100 28 7.6075 3.9972 17520 1396 3 0.50 100 28 7.7040 3.9912 17730 1417 4 0.50 100 28 7.6023 3.9973 17660 1407

PAGE 157

157 Table A2 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Compressive S trength (psi) 5 0.50 100 28 7.4960 4.0168 18240 1439 6 0.50 100 28 7.5745 4.0185 16660 1314 1 0.50 100 90 7.6040 4.0210 18950 1492 2 0.50 100 90 7.6485 4.0062 17880 1418 3 0.50 100 90 7.6648 4.0248 18700 1470 4 0.50 100 90 7.6790 4.0058 18000 1428 5 0.50 100 90 7.5220 4.0318 19600 15 35 6 0.50 100 90 7.5840 4.0190 17950 1415 Table A3 Compressive strength test results for concrete containing RAP 2 Sample Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Compressive S trength (psi) 1 0.50 20 7 7.6802 4.0220 43110 3393 2 0.50 20 7 7.7202 4.0150 43990 3475 3 0.50 20 7 7.7278 4.0238 43700 3437 4 0.50 20 7 7.6690 4.0098 42300 3350 5 0.50 20 7 7.7725 4.0235 41000 3225 6 0.50 20 7 7.6838 4.0168 43560 3438 1 0.50 20 14 7.7270 4.0225 47950 3773 2 0.50 20 14 7.6888 4.0108 49620 3927 3 0.50 20 14 7.6153 4.0085 50030 3964 4 0.50 20 14 7.7763 4.0305 49380 3870 5 0.50 20 14 7.7013 4.0020 50010 3976 6 0.50 20 14 7.6098 4.0345 51010 3990 1 0.50 20 28 7.6878 4.0103 50180 3973 2 0.50 20 28 7.7178 4.0268 54940 4314 3 0.50 20 28 7.6613 3.9993 52460 4176 4 0.50 20 28 7.6348 4.0148 52840 4174 5 0.50 20 28 7.6752 4.0120 52510 4154 6 0.50 20 28 7.6633 4.0175 53190 4196 1 0.50 20 90 7.6790 4.0200 57230 4509 2 0.50 20 90 7.7415 4.0497 5720 0 4441 3 0.50 20 90 7.6993 3.9993 57640 4588 4 0.50 20 90 7.7405 4.0147 58090 4589

PAGE 158

158 Table A3 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Compressive S trength (psi) 5 0.50 2 0 90 7.6748 4.0338 59480 4654 6 0.50 20 90 7.7918 4.0302 59060 4630 1 0.50 40 7 7.6983 4.0110 31440 2488 2 0.50 40 7 7.7303 4.0216 29210 2300 3 0.50 40 7 7.7093 4.0150 29370 2320 4 0.50 40 7 7.7625 4.0300 31280 2452 5 0.50 40 7 7.7878 4.0328 29580 23 16 6 0.50 40 7 7.8383 4.0273 30640 2405 1 0.50 40 14 7.6150 3.9978 33900 2701 2 0.50 40 14 7.7365 4.0141 32690 2583 3 0.50 40 14 7.7655 4.0256 33120 2602 4 0.50 40 14 7.6458 4.0082 33640 2666 5 0.50 40 14 7.7420 4.0197 34140 2690 6 0.50 40 14 7.6755 4.0148 35120 2774 1 0.50 40 28 7.6760 4.0182 36590 2885 2 0.50 40 28 7.7133 4.0163 37220 2938 3 0.50 40 28 7.7223 4.0143 36720 2901 4 0.50 40 28 7.7083 4.0138 35550 2810 5 0.50 40 28 7.6448 4.0202 38220 3011 6 0.50 40 28 7.7408 4.0100 37100 2938 1 0.50 40 90 7.8140 4.0268 39520 3103 2 0.50 40 90 7.6960 4.0185 40100 3162 3 0.50 40 90 7.8335 4.0067 37000 2935 4 0.50 40 90 7.8170 4.0128 32160 2543 5 0.50 40 90 7.6843 3.9997 39110 3113 6 0.50 40 90 7.7945 4.0203 39030 3075 1 0.50 70 7 7.6290 4.020 0 19450 1532 2 0.50 70 7 7.7188 4.0242 19310 1518 3 0.50 70 7 7.7460 4.0326 20330 1592 4 0.50 70 7 7.6208 4.0480 19780 1537 5 0.50 70 7 7.6808 4.0005 20860 1660 6 0.50 70 7 7.6180 4.0108 20500 1623 1 0.50 70 14 7.6893 4.0106 19790 1567 2 0.50 70 14 7.7727 4.0153 19360 1529

PAGE 159

159 Table A3 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Compressive S trength (psi) 3 0.50 70 14 7.6927 4.0070 21600 1713 4 0.50 70 14 7.7305 4.0068 21490 1704 5 0.50 70 14 7.7198 4.0058 21470 1704 6 0.50 70 14 7.6193 4.0303 21670 1699 1 0.50 70 28 7.5977 4.0035 24890 1977 2 0.50 70 28 7.6837 4.0025 22630 1799 3 0.50 70 28 7.6713 4.0210 23280 1833 4 0.50 70 28 7.8000 4.0325 22540 1765 5 0.50 70 28 7.7863 4.0198 23260 1833 6 0.50 70 28 7.6690 4.0158 23780 1878 1 0.50 70 90 7.6770 4.0576 25470 1970 2 0.50 70 90 7.6545 4.0362 24930 1948 3 0.50 70 90 7.6808 4.0118 24100 1907 4 0.50 70 90 7.6353 4.0273 26610 2089 5 0.50 70 90 7.7143 4.0278 23130 1815 6 0.50 70 90 7.6160 4.0378 21230 1658 1 0.50 100 7 7.6768 4.0180 16270 1283 2 0.50 100 7 7.6680 4.0180 16110 1271 3 0.50 100 7 7.6960 4.0253 16430 1291 4 0.50 100 7 7.6143 4.0140 16890 1335 5 0.50 100 7 7.7448 4.0055 16210 1286 6 0.50 100 7 7. 7500 4.0110 16370 1296 1 0.50 100 14 7.7628 4.0305 17100 1340 2 0.50 100 14 7.7323 4.0140 19050 1505 3 0.50 100 14 7.7098 4.0106 18750 1484 4 0.50 100 14 7.6572 4.0292 17670 1386 5 0.50 100 14 7.6633 4.0295 15560 1220 6 0.50 100 14 7.7425 4.0163 1797 0 1418 1 0.50 100 28 7.6158 4.0018 18660 1484 2 0.50 100 28 7.7703 4.0071 18730 1485 3 0.50 100 28 7.7395 4.0280 19360 1519 4 0.50 100 28 7.6555 4.0113 19010 1504 5 0.50 100 28 7.8645 4.0200 18610 1466 6 0.50 100 28 7.6775 4.0278 19030 1494

PAGE 160

160 Table A3 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Compressive S trength (psi) 1 0.50 100 90 7.5708 4.0260 15670 1231 2 0.50 100 90 7.7308 4.0167 19530 1541 3 0.50 100 90 7.6648 4.0182 20050 1581 4 0.50 100 90 7.9748 3.9843 21260 1705 5 0.50 100 90 7.7065 4.0168 15940 1258 6 0.50 100 90 7.6868 4.0272 20380 1600 Table A4 Compressive strength test results for concrete containing RAP 3 Specimen Number W/C RAP 3 (%) Curing P eri od (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Compressive S trength (psi) 1 0.50 20 7 7.7765 4.0169 44750 3531 2 0.50 20 7 7.7175 4.0103 43640 3455 3 0.50 20 7 7.7133 4.0230 45490 3579 4 0.50 20 7 7.7120 4.0175 45300 3574 5 0.5 0 20 7 7.7288 4.0248 45010 3538 6 0.50 20 7 7.6768 4.0098 39950 3164 1 0.50 20 14 7.8073 4.0160 47580 3756 2 0.50 20 14 7.7740 4.0165 48220 3806 3 0.50 20 14 7.6463 4.0163 47930 3783 4 0.50 20 14 7.7620 4.0220 50590 3982 5 0.50 20 14 7.7740 4.0233 50 140 3944 6 0.50 20 14 7.7365 4.0225 48390 3808 1 0.50 20 28 7.7447 4.0070 51330 4070 2 0.50 20 28 7.8278 4.0135 54930 4342 3 0.50 20 28 7.7893 4.0052 54280 4308 4 0.50 20 28 7.6748 4.0233 51300 4035 5 0.50 20 28 7.7378 4.0263 47130 3702 6 0.50 20 28 7.7855 4.0230 48380 3806 1 0.50 20 90 7.6905 4.0113 57060 4515 2 0.50 20 90 7.7235 4.0270 52330 4109 3 0.50 20 90 7.7005 4.0247 59430 4671 4 0.50 20 90 7.6765 4.0207 56320 4436 5 0.50 20 90 7.6413 4.0093 56490 4475 6 0.50 20 90 7.6783 4.0162 60040 4 739

PAGE 161

161 Table A4 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 3 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Compressive S trength (psi) 1 0.50 40 7 7.7298 4.0210 33810 2662 2 0.50 40 7 7.6555 4.0370 34060 2661 3 0.50 40 7 7.7533 4.0275 34790 2731 4 0.50 40 7 7.7365 4.0233 34380 2704 5 0.50 40 7 7.7498 4.0110 35100 2778 1 0.50 40 14 7.8125 4.0122 36760 2908 2 0.50 40 14 7.8070 4.0006 34870 2774 3 0.50 40 14 7.7753 4.0157 33620 2655 4 0.50 40 14 7.7315 4.0058 35430 2811 5 0.50 40 14 7.6585 4.0240 37000 2909 6 0.50 40 14 7.6405 4.0120 36000 2848 1 0.50 40 28 7.6815 4.0323 42400 3320 2 0.50 40 28 7.6373 4.0305 38810 3042 3 0.50 40 28 7.6360 4.0195 36260 2858 4 0.50 40 28 7.7275 4.0283 42340 3322 5 0.50 40 28 7.6803 4.0352 40830 3193 6 0.50 40 28 7.7590 4.0205 42000 3308 1 0.50 40 90 7.7580 4.0150 35680 2818 2 0.50 40 90 7.6645 4.0180 42850 3379 3 0.50 40 90 7.6445 4.0173 43030 3395 4 0.50 40 90 7.5965 4.0170 40290 3179 5 0.50 40 90 7.6845 4.0080 43430 3442 6 0 .50 40 90 7.5885 4.0212 39890 3141 1 0.50 70 7 7.7942 4.0163 26360 2081 2 0.50 70 7 7.8555 4.0143 23800 1880 3 0.50 70 7 7.6368 4.0118 24090 1906 4 0.50 70 7 7.8115 4.0243 25490 2004 5 0.50 70 7 7.6578 3.9983 23570 1877 6 0.50 70 7 7.7595 4.0203 2750 0 2166 1 0.50 70 14 7.7805 4.0151 27390 2163 2 0.50 70 14 7.7225 4.0422 24670 1922 3 0.50 70 14 7.6610 4.0243 28570 2246 4 0.50 70 14 7.6868 4.0168 25520 2014 5 0.50 70 14 7.7563 4.0158 21440 1693 6 0.50 70 14 7.7305 4.0198 24610 1939

PAGE 162

162 Table A4 C ontinued Specimen Number W/C RAP 3 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Compressive S trength (psi) 1 0.50 70 28 7.6263 4.0172 29320 2312 2 0.50 70 28 7.7718 4.0238 29310 2305 3 0.50 70 28 7.7840 4.0150 30 910 2441 4 0.50 70 28 7.8208 4.0085 27130 2150 5 0.50 70 28 7.8105 3.9977 27130 2161 6 0.50 70 28 7.8173 4.0182 28420 2241 1 0.50 70 90 7.5535 4.0253 23120 1817 2 0.50 70 90 7.5630 4.0165 23020 1817 3 0.50 70 90 7.8123 4.0238 26440 2079 4 0.50 70 90 7.6743 4.0268 32440 2547 5 0.50 70 90 7.7395 4.0200 26960 2124 6 0.50 70 90 7.8203 4.0357 33430 2613 1 0.50 100 7 7.7748 4.0240 17820 1401 2 0.50 100 7 7.7183 4.0180 17720 1398 3 0.50 100 7 7.7968 4.0395 17620 1375 4 0.50 100 7 7.6653 3.9855 15100 1 210 5 0.50 100 7 7.7010 4.0228 15130 1190 6 0.50 100 7 7.6023 4.0155 14460 1142 1 0.50 100 14 7.6738 4.0153 20260 1600 2 0.50 100 14 7.6355 4.0123 16810 1330 3 0.50 100 14 7.6283 4.0437 20840 1623 4 0.50 100 14 7.6508 4.0213 20950 1650 5 0.50 100 14 7.6930 4.0220 14000 1102 6 0.50 100 14 7.6283 4.0215 16360 1288 1 0.50 100 28 7.8440 4.0220 17370 1367 2 0.50 100 28 7.5528 4.0192 22440 1769 3 0.50 100 28 7.7383 4.0255 20290 1594 4 0.50 100 28 7.8098 4.0295 16590 1301 5 0.50 100 28 7.8553 4.0112 1 8310 1449 6 0.50 100 28 7.5835 3.9997 18560 1477 1 0.50 100 90 7.5740 4.0175 22900 1806 2 0.50 100 90 7.6968 4.0218 24000 1889 3 0.50 100 90 7.5560 4.0160 21940 1732 4 0.50 100 90 7.6003 4.0053 22670 1799 5 0.50 100 90 7.7828 4.0307 21720 1702

PAGE 163

163 Ta ble A5 Compressive strength test results for concrete containing RAP 4 Specimen Number W/C RAP 4 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Compressive S trength (psi) 1 0.50 20 7 7.7025 4.0230 43210 3399 2 0.50 20 7 7.7900 4.0245 43460 3416 3 0.50 20 7 7.6878 4.0155 40220 3176 4 0.50 20 7 7.7560 4.0180 45540 3592 5 0.50 20 7 7.7700 4.0203 44610 3514 6 0.50 20 7 7.6813 4.0030 45010 3576 1 0.50 20 14 7.6995 4.0125 50570 3999 2 0.50 20 14 7.6395 4.0198 47830 3769 3 0.50 20 14 7.6338 4.0452 46730 3636 4 0.50 20 14 7.7198 4.0118 49320 3902 5 0.50 20 14 7.6925 4.0128 49570 3920 6 0.50 20 14 7.7768 4.0085 46540 3688 1 0.50 20 28 7.6345 4.0172 51560 4068 2 0.50 20 28 7.6765 4.0147 45170 3568 3 0.50 20 28 7.6 975 3.9977 50360 4012 4 0.50 20 28 7.6933 4.0088 54790 4341 5 0.50 20 28 7.5450 3.9805 51050 4102 6 0.50 20 28 7.6108 4.0212 50380 3967 1 0.50 20 90 7.6305 4.0135 59410 4696 2 0.50 20 90 7.7145 4.0113 56650 4483 3 0.50 20 90 7.7245 3.9977 56310 4486 4 0.50 20 90 7.6540 4.0155 54770 4325 5 0.50 20 90 7.6935 4.0095 54310 4301 6 0.50 20 90 7.7253 4.0050 50780 4031 1 0.50 40 7 7.6055 4.0332 31040 2430 2 0.50 40 7 7.6145 4.0193 31340 2470 3 0.50 40 7 7.5965 4.0210 33140 2610 4 0.50 40 7 7.6950 4.01 73 28540 2252 5 0.50 40 7 7.6448 4.0322 26500 2075 6 0.50 40 7 7.6800 4.0255 32080 2521 1 0.50 40 14 7.6285 4.0217 36220 2851 2 0.50 40 14 7.8065 4.0270 31860 2501 3 0.50 40 14 7.6803 4.0030 35650 2833 4 0.50 40 14 7.6283 4.0080 31000 2457 5 0.50 40 14 7.7240 4.0168 30410 2400

PAGE 164

164 Table A5 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 4 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Compressive S trength (psi) 1 0.50 40 28 7.6505 4.0125 38850 3072 2 0.50 40 28 7.6225 4.012 7 34190 2704 3 0.50 40 28 7.7313 4.0183 34990 2759 4 0.50 40 28 7.6278 4.0252 39280 3087 5 0.50 40 28 7.6215 4.0143 35680 2819 6 0.50 40 28 7.5740 4.0383 39550 3088 1 0.50 40 90 7.5360 3.9930 43640 3485 2 0.50 40 90 7.6723 3.9943 40740 3251 3 0.50 4 0 90 7.5718 4.0175 41700 3290 4 0.50 40 90 7.7020 3.9892 41400 3312 5 0.50 40 90 7.7103 4.0262 37620 2955 6 0.50 40 90 7.5668 3.9962 37410 2983 1 0.50 70 7 7.7190 4.0090 25050 1984 2 0.50 70 7 7.6835 4.0292 23830 1869 3 0.50 70 7 7.6205 4.0183 26860 2118 4 0.50 70 7 7.6053 3.9937 24020 1917 5 0.50 70 7 7.6828 4.0097 24940 1975 6 0.50 70 7 7.6645 4.0137 20660 1633 1 0.50 70 14 7.6213 3.9928 26930 2151 2 0.50 70 14 7.5988 4.0120 23410 1852 3 0.50 70 14 7.5948 4.0073 27060 2146 4 0.50 70 14 7.6180 4.0030 20620 1638 5 0.50 70 14 7.6125 4.0203 22390 1764 6 0.50 70 14 7.6930 4.0250 23290 1830 1 0.50 70 28 7.7913 4.0263 27610 2169 2 0.50 70 28 7.7865 3.9928 29100 2324 3 0.50 70 28 7.7630 4.0035 27600 2192 4 0.50 70 28 7.7028 4.0230 29040 2285 5 0.50 70 28 7.6375 4.0203 29750 2344 6 0.50 70 28 7.7130 4.0050 28350 2250 1 0.50 70 90 7.6683 4.0220 32460 2555 2 0.50 70 90 7.6573 4.0113 30990 2452 3 0.50 70 90 7.6310 3.9962 31370 2501 4 0.50 70 90 7.6660 3.9977 31130 2480

PAGE 165

165 Table A5 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 4 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Compressive S trength (psi) 5 0.50 70 90 7.5580 3.9938 31270 2496 6 0.50 70 90 7.6705 3.9865 33610 2693 1 0.50 100 7 7.6960 4.0247 18820 1479 2 0.50 100 7 7.6215 4.0293 17010 1334 3 0.50 100 7 7.5553 4.0220 18510 1457 4 0.50 100 7 7.6515 4.0095 16530 1309 5 0.50 100 7 7.7155 4.0210 15600 1228 6 0.50 100 7 7.6475 4.0200 15460 1218 1 0.50 100 14 7.6168 4.0140 16400 1296 2 0.50 100 14 7.5883 4.0055 19610 1556 3 0.50 100 14 7.6833 4.0185 16120 1271 4 0.50 100 14 7.6320 4.0087 20900 1656 5 0.50 100 14 7.6238 3.9977 21050 1677 6 0.50 100 14 7.6678 4.0118 21060 1666 1 0.50 100 28 7.8455 4.0102 16450 1302 2 0.50 100 28 7.8310 4.0192 22000 17 34 3 0.50 100 28 7.6283 4.0173 17530 1383 4 0.50 100 28 7.5380 4.0208 20660 1627 5 0.50 100 28 7.5968 4.0208 20430 1609 6 0.50 100 28 7.6303 4.0050 20920 1661 1 0.50 100 90 7.6473 4.0050 22450 1782 2 0.50 100 90 7.5960 4.0083 22670 1797 3 0.50 100 9 0 7.6840 4.0158 22640 1787 4 0.50 100 90 7.5783 4.0280 23010 1806 5 0.50 100 90 7.7695 3.9935 23380 1867 6 0.50 100 90 7.6370 4.0075 18880 1497 Table A6 test results for concrete containing no RAP Specimen Nu mber W/C RAP (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average Di ameter (in) Modulus of Elasticity (10 6 psi) R atio 1 0.45 0 7 7.6026 4.0111 4.47 0.24 2 0.45 0 7 7.8166 4.0108 4.37 0.26 3 0.45 0 7 7.7812 4.0231 4.43 0.25

PAGE 166

166 Table A6 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Modulus of Elasticity (10 6 psi) Poiso R atio 1 0.45 0 14 7.6963 4.0115 4.37 0.25 2 0.45 0 14 7.7783 4.0150 4.35 0.23 3 0.45 0 14 7.7297 4.0135 4.5 0 0.24 1 0.4 5 0 28 7.6830 4.0068 4.62 0.25 2 0.45 0 28 7.7606 4.0108 4.52 0.24 3 0.45 0 28 7.6452 4.0275 4.57 0.24 1 0.45 0 90 7.6870 4.0120 4.62 0.27 2 0.45 0 90 7.7560 4.0075 4.67 0.23 3 0.45 0 90 7.6975 4.0265 4.77 0.24 1 0.50 0 7 7.6393 4.0015 3.92 0.20 2 0 .50 0 7 7.6648 4.0228 3.95 0.21 3 0.50 0 7 7.7130 4.0130 4.05 0.23 1 0.50 0 14 7.6202 4.0231 4.32 / 2 0.50 0 14 7.6258 4.0018 4.20 0.22 3 0.50 0 14 7.6428 4.0117 4.15 0.22 1 0.50 0 28 7.5505 4.000 4.58 0.22 2 0.50 0 28 7.5642 4.0152 4.38 0.25 3 0.50 0 28 7.6168 4.0012 4.32 0.26 1 0.50 0 90 7.6690 3.9985 4.33 0.25 2 0.50 0 90 7.7050 4.0123 4.35 0.23 3 0.50 0 90 7.6870 4.0125 4.52 0.22 1 0.55 0 7 7.6377 4.0053 4.00 0.22 2 0.55 0 7 7.6358 4.0115 3.81 0.21 3 0.55 0 7 7.7165 3.9965 3.83 0.23 1 0.55 0 14 7.7012 4.0000 3.95 0.22 2 0.55 0 14 7.4673 4.0038 4.32 0.24 3 0.55 0 14 7.5933 4.0257 4.01 0.22 1 0.55 0 28 7.6156 3.9973 4.00 0.25 2 0.55 0 28 7.6055 3.9985 4.42 0.22 3 0.55 0 28 7.5830 4.0133 4.25 0.24 1 0.55 0 90 7.5625 4.0415 4.15 0.22 2 0 .55 0 90 7.6063 4.0085 4.32 0.23 3 0.55 0 90 7.6493 4.0123 4.25 0.24

PAGE 167

167 Table A7 test results for concrete containing RAP 1 Specimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Modulus of Elasticity (10 6 psi) R atio 1 0.50 20 7 7.6858 4.0098 3.20 0.24 2 0.50 20 7 7.7090 4.0075 3.28 0.23 3 0.50 20 7 7.6992 4.0255 2.98 0.22 1 0.50 20 14 7.6200 4.0117 3.33 0.24 2 0.50 20 14 7.7130 4.0342 3.28 0.26 3 0.50 20 14 7.6 636 4.0310 3.45 0.25 1 0.50 20 28 7.6460 4.0172 3.53 0.26 2 0.50 20 28 7.6750 3.9927 3.38 0.26 3 0.50 20 28 7.6582 3.9872 3.42 0.22 1 0.50 20 90 7.6408 4.0015 3.73 0.23 2 0.50 20 90 7.6335 4.0155 3.67 0.25 3 0.50 20 90 7.6590 4.0095 3.62 0.25 1 0.50 40 7 7.5580 4.0177 3.15 0.25 2 0.50 40 7 7.6342 4.0135 2.63 0.24 3 0.50 40 7 7.5010 4.0190 2.43 0.25 1 0.50 40 14 7.6308 4.0272 2.90 0.25 2 0.50 40 14 7.6318 3.9957 2.93 0.27 3 0.50 40 14 7.5980 4.0195 2.57 0.27 1 0.50 40 28 7.5502 4.0038 2.87 0.22 2 0.50 40 28 7.5295 4.0247 3.20 0.25 3 0.50 40 28 7.5445 4.0157 2.92 0.27 1 0.50 40 90 7.7235 4.0225 2.83 0.29 2 0.50 40 90 7.5675 4.0225 2.95 0.27 3 0.50 40 90 7.7418 4.0200 3.05 0.25 1 0.50 70 7 7.6423 4.0105 1.65 0.26 2 0.50 70 7 7.6348 4.0128 1. 73 0.26 3 0.50 70 7 7.6103 4.0153 1.72 0.28 1 0.50 70 14 7.6613 4.0103 1.93 0.26 2 0.50 70 14 7.6675 4.0093 1.70 0.29 3 0.50 70 14 7.6420 3.9860 1.68 0.29 1 0.50 70 28 7.6287 3.9910 1.92 0.25 2 0.50 70 28 7.5850 4.0158 1.80 0.26 3 0.50 70 28 7.7023 4.0057 1.75 0.30

PAGE 168

168 Table A7 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Modulus of Elasticity (10 6 psi) R atio 1 0.50 70 90 7.6580 3.9948 1.93 0.28 2 0.50 70 90 7.6620 4.0087 2.03 0.26 3 0.50 70 90 7.6780 4.0050 2.06 0.30 1 0.50 100 7 7.4283 4.0168 1.15 0.20 2 0.50 100 7 7.5387 4.0043 1.08 0.26 3 0.50 100 7 7.6642 4.0092 1.12 0.28 1 0.50 100 14 7.5333 3.9992 1.20 0.28 2 0.50 100 14 7.6660 4.0108 1.22 0.29 3 0.50 100 14 7.6012 4.0 168 1.35 0.30 1 0.50 100 28 7.6023 3.9973 1.30 0.32 2 0.50 100 28 7.4960 4.0168 1.30 0.33 3 0.50 100 28 7.5745 4.0185 1.18 0.29 1 0.50 100 90 7.6790 4.0058 1.13 0.28 2 0.50 100 90 7.5220 4.0318 1.35 0.30 3 0.50 100 90 7.5840 4.0190 1.23 0.30 Table A8 test results for concrete containing RAP 2 Specimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Modulus of Elasticity (10 6 psi) R atio 1 0.50 20 7 7.6690 4.0098 3.08 0.24 2 0.50 20 7 7.7725 4.0235 3.35 0.21 3 0.50 20 7 7.6838 4.0168 3.28 0.25 1 0.50 20 14 7.7763 4.0305 3.55 0.26 2 0.50 20 14 7.7013 4.0020 3.42 0.26 3 0.50 20 14 7.6098 4.0345 3.42 0.24 1 0.50 20 28 7.6348 4.0148 3.53 0.24 2 0.50 20 28 7.6752 4.0120 3.72 0.28 3 0.50 20 28 7.6633 4.0175 3.82 0.26 1 0.50 20 90 7.7405 4.0147 3.88 0.24 2 0.50 20 90 7.6748 4.0338 3.90 0.25 3 0.50 20 90 7.7918 4.0302 3.85 0.24 1 0.50 40 7 7.7625 4.0300 2.58 0.25

PAGE 169

169 Table A8 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Modulus of Elasticity (10 6 psi) R atio 2 0.50 40 7 7.7878 4.0328 2.52 0.26 3 0.50 40 7 7.8383 4.0273 2.52 0.24 1 0.50 40 14 7.6458 4.0082 2.62 0.25 2 0.50 40 14 7.7420 4.0197 2 .73 0.26 3 0.50 40 14 7.6755 4.0148 2.77 0.22 1 0.50 40 28 7.7083 4.0138 2.70 0.26 2 0.50 40 28 7.6448 4.0202 2.83 0.27 3 0.50 40 28 7.7408 4.0100 2.77 0.22 1 0.50 40 90 7.8170 4.0128 2.92 0.25 2 0.50 40 90 7.6843 3.9997 2.87 0.24 3 0.50 40 90 7.794 5 4.0203 2.82 0.27 1 0.50 70 7 7.6208 4.0480 1.58 0.26 2 0.50 70 7 7.6808 4.0005 1.70 0.26 3 0.50 70 7 7.6180 4.0108 1.67 0.27 1 0.50 70 14 7.7305 4.0068 1.77 0.26 2 0.50 70 14 7.7198 4.0058 1.73 0.25 3 0.50 70 14 7.6193 4.0303 1.75 0.24 1 0.50 70 2 8 7.8000 4.0325 1.85 0.29 2 0.50 70 28 7.7863 4.0198 1.87 0.23 3 0.50 70 28 7.6690 4.0158 1.82 0.23 1 0.50 70 90 7.6353 4.0273 1.92 0.24 2 0.50 70 90 7.7143 4.0278 1.90 0.24 3 0.50 70 90 7.6160 4.0378 2.08 0.27 4 0.50 100 7 7.6143 4.0140 1.25 0.24 5 0.50 100 7 7.7448 4.0055 1.27 0.28 6 0.50 100 7 7.7500 4.0110 1.27 0.27 4 0.50 100 14 7.6572 4.0292 1.20 0.27 5 0.50 100 14 7.6633 4.0295 1.24 0.25 6 0.50 100 14 7.7425 4.0163 1.25 0.30 4 0.50 100 28 7.6555 4.0113 1.42 0.28 5 0.50 100 28 7.8645 4.02 00 1.40 0.28 6 0.50 100 28 7.6775 4.0278 1.30 0.27 4 0.50 100 90 7.9748 3.9843 1.42 0.26 5 0.50 100 90 7.7065 4.0168 1.35 0.29

PAGE 170

170 Table A9 RAP 3 Specimen Number W/C RAP 3 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Modulus of Elasticity (10 6 psi) R atio 1 0.50 20 7 7.7120 4.0175 3.48 0.23 2 0.50 20 7 7.7288 4.0248 3.38 0.24 3 0.50 20 7 7.6768 4.0098 3.40 0.23 1 0.50 20 14 7.7620 4.0220 3.55 0. 25 2 0.50 20 14 7.7740 4.0233 3.50 0.23 3 0.50 20 14 7.7365 4.0225 3.42 0.23 1 0.50 20 28 7.6748 4.0233 3.53 0.25 2 0.50 20 28 7.7378 4.0263 3.62 0.22 3 0.50 20 28 7.7855 4.0230 3.68 0.25 1 0.50 20 90 7.6765 4.0207 3.78 0.23 2 0.50 20 90 7.6413 4.00 93 3.73 0.24 3 0.50 20 90 7.6783 4.0162 3.82 0.23 1 0.50 40 7 7.7533 4.0275 2.55 0.24 2 0.50 40 7 7.7365 4.0233 2.58 0.22 3 0.50 40 7 7.7498 4.0110 2.62 0.23 1 0.50 40 14 7.7315 4.0058 2.63 0.22 2 0.50 40 14 7.6585 4.0240 2.60 0.23 3 0.50 40 14 7.64 05 4.0120 2.78 0.24 1 0.50 40 28 7.7275 4.0283 2.83 0.23 2 0.50 40 28 7.6803 4.0352 2.70 0.23 3 0.50 40 28 7.7590 4.0205 2.88 0.25 1 0.50 40 90 7.5965 4.0170 3.18 0.23 2 0.50 40 90 7.6845 4.0080 2.55 0.24 3 0.50 40 90 7.5885 4.0212 2.72 0.25 1 0.50 70 7 7.8115 4.0243 1.80 0.29 2 0.50 70 7 7.6578 3.9983 1.65 0.24 3 0.50 70 7 7.7595 4.0203 1.88 0.22 1 0.50 70 14 7.6868 4.0168 1.95 0.24 2 0.50 70 14 7.7563 4.0158 1.78 0.25 3 0.50 70 14 7.7305 4.0198 1.95 0.21 1 0.50 70 28 7.8208 4.0085 1.90 0.27 2 0.50 70 28 7.8105 3.9977 1.78 0.24 3 0.50 70 28 7.8173 4.0182 1.97 0.23

PAGE 171

171 Table A9 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 3 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Modulus of Elasticity (10 6 psi) R atio 1 0.50 70 90 7.7395 4.0200 2.05 0.26 2 0.50 70 90 7.8203 4.0357 2.20 0.26 1 0.50 100 7 7.6653 3.9855 1.18 0.25 2 0.50 100 7 7.7010 4.0228 1.22 0.24 3 0.50 100 7 7.6023 4.0155 1.10 0.26 1 0.50 100 14 7.6508 4.0213 1.35 0.27 2 0.50 100 14 7.6930 4.0220 1.22 0.27 3 0.50 100 14 7.6283 4.02 15 1.27 0.27 1 0.50 100 28 7.8098 4.0295 1.18 0.27 2 0.50 100 28 7.8553 4.0112 1.28 0.25 3 0.50 100 28 7.5835 3.9997 1.30 0.24 1 0.50 100 90 7.6003 4.0053 1.10 0.21 2 0.50 100 90 7.7828 4.0307 1.25 0.25 3 0.50 100 90 7.5533 4.0288 1.33 0.24 Table A 10 RAP 4 Specimen Number W/C RAP 4 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Modulus of Elasticity (10 6 psi) R atio 1 0.50 20 7 7.7560 4.0180 3.55 0.23 2 0.50 20 7 7.7700 4.0203 3.37 0.27 3 0.50 20 7 7.6813 4.0030 3.72 0.26 1 0.50 20 14 7.7198 4.0118 3.32 0.23 2 0.50 20 14 7.6925 4.0128 3.28 0.25 3 0.50 20 14 7.7768 4.0085 3.38 0.25 1 0.50 20 28 7.6933 4.0088 3.62 0.26 2 0.50 20 28 7.5450 3.9805 3.73 0.22 3 0.50 20 28 7.6108 4.0212 3.52 0.25 1 0.50 20 90 7.6540 4.0155 3.67 0.24 2 0.50 20 90 7.6935 4.0095 3.73 0.24 3 0.50 20 90 7.7253 4.0050 3.62 0.24 1 0.50 40 7 7.6950 4.0173 2.75 0.26

PAGE 172

172 Table A10 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 4 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Modulus of Elasticity (10 6 psi) R atio 2 0.50 40 7 7.6800 4.0255 2.55 0.29 1 0.50 40 14 7.6283 4.0080 2.72 0.30 2 0.50 40 14 7.7240 4.0168 2.68 0.26 3 0.50 40 14 7.7218 4.0173 2 .40 0.23 1 0.50 40 28 7.6278 4.0252 2.68 0.27 2 0.50 40 28 7.6215 4.0143 2.67 0.23 3 0.50 40 28 7.5740 4.0383 2.82 0.25 1 0.50 40 90 7.7020 3.9892 2.78 0.29 2 0.50 40 90 7.7103 4.0262 2.72 0.22 3 0.50 40 90 7.5668 3.9962 2.98 0.28 1 0.50 70 7 7.6053 3.9937 1.75 0.27 2 0.50 70 7 7.6828 4.0097 1.78 0.28 3 0.50 70 7 7.6645 4.0137 1.73 0.29 1 0.50 70 14 7.6180 4.0030 1.72 0.24 2 0.50 70 14 7.6125 4.0203 1.82 0.26 3 0.50 70 14 7.6930 4.0250 1.78 0.25 1 0.50 70 28 7.7028 4.0230 1.72 0.24 2 0.50 70 2 8 7.6375 4.0203 1.92 0.26 3 0.50 70 28 7.7130 4.0050 1.72 0.24 1 0.50 70 90 7.6660 3.9977 1.93 0.27 2 0.50 70 90 7.5580 3.9938 1.95 0.27 3 0.50 70 90 7.6705 3.9865 2.15 0.25 1 0.50 100 7 7.6515 4.0095 1.13 0.26 2 0.50 100 7 7.7155 4.0210 1.10 0.25 3 0.50 100 7 7.6475 4.0200 1.23 0.25 1 0.50 100 14 7.6320 4.0087 1.28 0.25 2 0.50 100 14 7.6238 3.9977 1.25 0.26 3 0.50 100 14 7.6678 4.0118 1.20 0.27 1 0.50 100 28 7.5380 4.0208 1.17 0.28 2 0.50 100 28 7.5968 4.0208 1.20 0.26 3 0.50 100 28 7.6303 4.0 050 1.20 0.25 1 0.50 100 90 7.5783 4.0280 1.25 0.27 2 0.50 100 90 7.7695 3.9935 1.42 0.28 3 0.50 100 90 7.6370 4.0075 1.33 0.28

PAGE 173

173 Table A11 Splitting tensile strength test results for concrete containing no RAP Specimen Number W/C R A P (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Splitting Tensile S trength (psi) 1 0.45 0 7 7.8400 4.0100 24270 491 2 0.45 0 7 7.7000 4.0068 25320 522 3 0.45 0 7 7.6720 4.0310 22190 457 1 0.45 0 14 8.0070 4.0190 35270 698 2 0.45 0 14 8.0350 4.0140 25460 503 3 0.45 0 14 8.0458 4.0056 29190 577 1 0.45 0 28 7.9610 4.0130 32470 647 2 0.45 0 28 7.9952 4.0250 33210 657 3 0.45 0 28 7.9672 4.0085 34460 687 1 0.45 0 90 8.0230 4.0142 32300 638 2 0.45 0 90 8.0220 4.0 150 34040 673 3 0.45 0 90 8.0025 4.0150 33310 660 1 0.50 0 7 8.0850 4.0043 23190 456 2 0.50 0 7 8.0155 4.0210 24910 492 3 0.50 0 7 8.0268 4.0215 23880 471 1 0.50 0 14 7.9980 4.0096 23720 471 2 0.50 0 14 / / / / 3 0.50 0 14 7.9375 4.0140 28960 579 1 0.50 0 28 8.0225 4.0310 23250 458 2 0.50 0 28 8.0167 4.0095 27320 541 3 0.50 0 28 8.0135 3.9972 24640 490 1 0.50 0 90 8.0780 4.0000 28600 563 2 0.50 0 90 8.0342 4.0370 30800 605 3 0.50 0 90 8.0000 4.0138 31510 625 1 0.55 0 7 8.0198 4.0150 25070 496 2 0.55 0 7 8.0230 4.0140 21050 416 3 0.55 0 7 7.9658 4.0126 17360 346 1 0.55 0 14 8.0111 4.0395 21800 429 2 0.55 0 14 8.0570 4.0040 21500 424 3 0.55 0 14 7.9980 4.0001 23140 460 1 0.55 0 28 8.0568 4.0163 25180 495 2 0.55 0 28 8.0760 4.0305 25970 508 3 0.55 0 28 7.9800 4.0067 26470 527 1 0.55 0 90 8.0001 4.0190 25150 498 2 0.55 0 90 7.9910 3.9983 27430 547 3 0.55 0 90 8.0046 4.0106 28550 566

PAGE 174

174 Table A12 Splitting tensile strength test results for concrete containing RAP 1 Specimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Splitting Tensile Strength (psi) 1 0.50 20 7 8.0083 3.9970 17020 339 2 0.50 20 7 7.9513 3.9850 18740 377 3 0.50 20 7 8.0013 3.9895 21230 423 1 0.50 20 14 8.0400 4.01 98 20990 413 2 0.50 20 14 8.0540 4.0031 22080 436 3 0.50 20 14 8.0430 4.0095 17640 348 1 0.50 20 28 8.0100 4.0290 23040 454 2 0.50 20 28 8.0447 3.9905 23480 466 3 0.50 20 28 8.0355 4.0052 22060 436 1 0.50 20 90 8.0921 4.0100 22410 440 2 0.50 20 90 8 .0236 4.0200 23790 470 3 0.50 20 90 8.0525 4.0147 20750 409 1 0.50 40 7 7.9433 4.0197 16550 330 2 0.50 40 7 7.9515 4.0080 17090 341 3 0.50 40 7 7.9973 4.0156 16610 329 1 0.50 40 14 7.9865 4.0088 17160 341 2 0.50 40 14 7.9725 4.0142 18550 369 3 0.50 40 14 8.0713 4.0098 20010 394 1 0.50 40 28 8.0903 4.0108 19720 387 2 0.50 40 28 7.8960 3.9983 16860 340 3 0.50 40 28 7.9995 4.0106 19250 382 1 0.50 40 90 7.9658 3.9975 19560 391 2 0.50 40 90 8.0470 3.9965 19500 386 3 0.50 40 90 7.9328 3.9983 20460 41 1 1 0.50 70 7 8.0000 4.0181 12580 249 2 0.50 70 7 7.9818 3.9956 12090 241 3 0.50 70 7 7.9435 4.0108 12920 258 1 0.50 70 14 7.9600 4.0106 14240 284 2 0.50 70 14 8.0395 4.0148 14070 278 3 0.50 70 14 8.0110 4.0213 12480 247 1 0.50 70 28 8.0021 4.0193 1 5080 298 2 0.50 70 28 8.0075 4.0095 14740 292 3 0.50 70 28 7.9521 4.0118 15960 318 1 0.50 70 90 7.9722 4.0047 13860 276 2 0.50 70 90 8.0122 4.0106 12790 253 3 0.50 70 90 8.0155 4.0067 13130 260 1 0.50 100 7 7.8835 4.0080 9070 183 2 0.50 100 7 7.8605 4.0203 9510 192 3 0.50 100 7 7.9354 4.0070 7940 159

PAGE 175

175 Table A12 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Splitting Tensile Strength (psi) 1 0.50 100 14 7.9301 4.0206 9580 191 2 0.50 100 14 7.9298 4.0151 10100 202 3 0.50 100 14 7.9802 4.0001 10660 213 1 0.50 100 28 8.0580 4.0123 9730 192 2 0.50 100 28 7.9395 4.0155 9410 188 3 0.50 100 28 7.9297 4.0216 8280 165 1 0.50 100 90 8.0060 4.0073 12930 257 2 0.50 100 90 7.8600 4.0168 11900 240 3 0.50 100 90 8.0710 4.0046 11950 235 Table A13 Splitting tensile strength test results for concrete containing RAP 2 Specimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Spli tting Tensile Strength (psi) 1 0.50 20 7 8.0643 4.0332 18560 363 2 0.50 20 7 8.0848 4.0200 23810 466 3 0.50 20 7 8.0995 4.0303 23220 453 1 0.50 20 14 8.0945 4.0140 23640 463 2 0.50 20 14 8.1340 4.0328 22680 440 3 0.50 20 14 8.1418 4.0253 19590 381 1 0.50 20 28 8.1815 4.0158 21930 425 2 0.50 20 28 8.0288 3.9652 23010 460 3 0.50 20 28 8.0938 3.9930 22450 442 1 0.50 20 90 8.0885 3.9965 22570 444 2 0.50 20 90 8.0498 4.0185 23530 463 3 0.50 20 90 8.0480 4.0030 26360 521 1 0.50 40 7 8.1287 4.0305 180 90 352 2 0.50 40 7 8.1617 4.0345 16050 310 3 0.50 40 7 8.2152 4.0158 14440 279 1 0.50 40 14 8.0080 4.0185 16110 319 2 0.50 40 14 8.1617 4.0198 20570 399 3 0.50 40 14 8.1283 3.9990 17200 337 1 0.50 40 28 8.0953 4.0028 18090 355 2 0.50 40 28 8.0305 4. 0172 18290 361 3 0.50 40 28 8.0193 4.0215 19830 391 1 0.50 40 90 8.0043 4.0043 20180 401 2 0.50 40 90 8.0780 4.0030 21790 429 3 0.50 40 90 8.0363 3.9878 20570 409

PAGE 176

176 Table A13 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Splitting Tensile Strength (psi) 1 0.50 70 7 7.9780 4.0203 10690 212 2 0.50 70 7 7.9793 4.0065 12520 249 3 0.50 70 7 8.1165 4.0203 12060 235 1 0.50 70 14 8.0582 4.0175 13970 275 2 0.50 70 14 8.1417 4.0107 13560 264 3 0.50 70 14 8.0607 4.0115 12570 247 1 0.50 70 28 7.9750 4.0357 14020 277 2 0.50 70 28 8.0633 4.0198 12290 241 3 0.50 70 28 8.0863 4.0250 13040 255 1 0.50 70 90 8.0393 4.0268 12490 246 2 0.50 70 90 8.0768 4.0223 13190 258 3 0.50 70 90 8.1 498 4.0222 13160 256 1 0.50 100 7 8.0990 4.0093 10280 202 2 0.50 100 7 8.0243 4.0217 9890 195 3 0.50 100 7 8.1040 4.0265 10040 196 1 0.50 100 14 8.1620 4.0068 12190 237 2 0.50 100 14 8.0170 4.0077 10940 217 3 0.50 100 14 7.9950 3.9990 11390 227 1 0. 50 100 28 8.1617 4.0095 10380 202 2 0.50 100 28 8.1997 4.0068 11260 218 3 0.50 100 28 8.0615 4.0140 11830 233 1 0.50 100 90 8.1815 4.0272 11970 231 2 0.50 100 90 8.1455 4.0113 10730 209 3 0.50 100 90 8.1253 4.0220 10820 211 Table A14 Splitting tens ile strength test results for concrete containing RAP 3 Specimen Number W/C RAP 3 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Splitting Tensile Strength (psi) 1 0.50 20 7 8.0505 4.0228 20990 413 2 0.50 20 7 8.055 5 4.0267 20800 408 3 0.50 20 7 8.0927 4.0297 17900 349 1 0.50 20 14 8.1148 4.0385 20840 405 2 0.50 20 14 8.0583 4.0053 22700 448 3 0.50 20 14 8.0573 4.0145 22530 443 1 0.50 20 28 8.1598 4.0248 21190 411 2 0.50 20 28 8.0370 4.0075 17960 355 3 0.50 20 28 8.0880 4.0370 22290 435

PAGE 177

177 Table 14 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 3 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Splitting Tensile Strength (psi) 1 0.50 20 90 8.1445 4.0102 24170 471 2 0.50 20 90 8.0890 4.0 227 23190 454 3 0.50 20 90 8.1025 4.0205 20910 409 1 0.50 40 7 8.0430 4.0178 16450 324 2 0.50 40 7 8.0225 4.0137 18430 364 3 0.50 40 7 8.0610 4.0242 15860 311 1 0.50 40 14 8.1058 4.0143 16410 321 2 0.50 40 14 8.1260 4.0367 16760 325 3 0.50 40 14 8.1 195 4.0262 16490 321 1 0.50 40 28 8.0848 4.0355 19040 372 2 0.50 40 28 8.1195 4.0128 17350 339 3 0.50 40 28 8.0045 4.0208 17210 340 1 0.50 40 90 8.0893 3.9922 19950 393 2 0.50 40 90 8.1153 4.0215 19720 385 3 0.50 40 90 8.0688 3.9945 16680 329 1 0.50 70 7 8.1430 4.0320 13100 254 2 0.50 70 7 8.0762 4.0002 13820 272 3 0.50 70 7 8.1925 4.0260 12740 246 1 0.50 70 14 8.0905 4.0173 14180 278 2 0.50 70 14 8.1040 4.0117 15110 296 3 0.50 70 14 7.9987 4.0222 13760 272 1 0.50 70 28 8.1602 4.0135 14310 278 2 0.50 70 28 8.2127 4.0147 15020 290 3 0.50 70 28 8.1817 4.0083 12830 249 1 0.50 70 90 8.0863 4.0257 14190 278 2 0.50 70 90 8.1093 4.0132 14120 276 3 0.50 70 90 8.0560 4.0157 16200 319 1 0.50 100 7 8.0685 4.0332 10510 206 2 0.50 100 7 7.9805 3.9917 10620 212 3 0.50 100 7 8.1103 4.0222 9920 194 1 0.50 100 14 8.0583 4.0068 9400 185 2 0.50 100 14 8.0620 4.0207 10260 202 3 0.50 100 14 7.9740 4.0000 11540 230 1 0.50 100 28 8.1617 4.0058 11480 224 2 0.50 100 28 8.2107 4.0200 9300 179 3 0.50 100 28 7 .9795 4.0223 10200 202 1 0.50 100 90 8.0398 4.0148 12380 244 2 0.50 100 90 8.1530 4.0243 12240 237 3 0.50 100 90 8.1538 4.0427 12410 240

PAGE 178

178 Table A15 Splitting tensile strength test results for concrete containing RAP 4 Specimen Number W/C RAP 4 (%) Curi ng P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Splitting Tensile Strength (psi) 1 0.50 20 7 8.1220 4.0218 16830 328 2 0.50 20 7 8.0930 4.0492 18890 367 3 0.50 20 7 8.1343 4.0110 21110 412 1 0.50 20 14 8.0793 4.0132 22560 443 2 0.50 20 14 8.1065 4.0367 17700 344 3 0.50 20 14 8.0768 4.0187 19550 383 1 0.50 20 28 8.1450 4.0241 25010 486 2 0.50 20 28 8.1035 4.0120 21670 424 3 0.50 20 28 8.1118 4.0138 22600 442 1 0.50 20 90 8.1295 4.0087 24680 482 2 0.50 20 90 8.1095 4.0 081 23310 457 3 0.50 20 90 8.0990 4.0330 18390 358 1 0.50 40 7 8.0185 4.0077 16490 327 2 0.50 40 7 8.1283 3.9840 14380 283 3 0.50 40 7 8.1125 3.9978 16010 314 1 0.50 40 14 8.0065 4.0257 17490 345 2 0.50 40 14 8.1768 4.0113 17460 339 3 0.50 40 14 8.0 790 4.0122 19340 380 1 0.50 40 28 8.1075 4.0073 18650 365 2 0.50 40 28 8.1860 4.0105 19490 378 3 0.50 40 28 8.0655 4.0170 18850 370 1 0.50 40 90 8.1523 4.0127 16370 319 2 0.50 40 90 8.1315 4.0047 16800 328 3 0.50 40 90 8.0695 4.0017 20110 396 1 0.50 70 7 8.0915 4.0072 13420 263 2 0.50 70 7 7.9490 3.9823 10930 220 3 0.50 70 7 8.0603 4.0180 13220 260 1 0.50 70 14 8.0460 4.0218 15530 306 2 0.50 70 14 8.0367 4.0037 15800 313 3 0.50 70 14 8.0408 3.9948 14860 295 1 0.50 70 28 8.0678 4.0178 16690 328 2 0.50 70 28 8.0285 4.0005 16840 334 3 0.50 70 28 8.0180 4.0140 17500 346 1 0.50 70 90 8.0948 4.0123 15180 298 2 0.50 70 90 8.0100 4.0128 13740 272 3 0.50 70 90 8.0323 4.0138 13790 272 1 0.50 100 7 8.0425 4.0007 10320 204 2 0.50 100 7 8.0480 4.0030 12080 239 3 0.50 100 7 8.0973 4.0240 11780 230

PAGE 179

179 Table A15 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 4 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average L ength (in) Average D iameter (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Splitting Tensile Strength (psi) 1 0.50 100 14 8.0595 4.0210 11700 230 2 0.50 100 14 8.1142 4.0128 12080 236 3 0.50 100 14 8.0380 4.0098 11340 224 1 0.50 100 28 8.1305 4.0003 10620 208 2 0.50 100 28 8.0503 4.0110 11630 229 3 0.50 100 28 8.0813 4.0102 11270 221 1 0.50 100 90 8.1027 4.0073 10480 205 2 0.50 100 90 8.0372 4. 0157 11790 233 3 0.50 100 90 8.0058 4.0133 9540 189 Table A16 Flexural strength test data for concrete containing no RAP Specimen Number W/C RAP (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average W idth (in) Average D epth (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Flexural S trength (psi) 1 0.45 0 7 4.0201 4.0005 3447 643 2 0.45 0 7 3.9850 4.0025 3389 637 3 0.45 0 7 4.0083 4.0020 3424 640 4 0.45 0 7 4.0175 4.0405 3930 719 5 0.45 0 7 4.0000 4.0045 3672 687 1 0.45 0 14 4.0323 4.0078 4161 771 2 0.45 0 14 3.9885 4.0148 4184 781 3 0.45 0 14 4.0870 4.0120 3640 664 4 0.45 0 14 4.0206 4.0160 4199 777 5 0.45 0 14 4.0228 4.0573 4056 735 1 0.45 0 28 3.9975 4.0316 4234 782 2 0.45 0 28 4.0800 4.0162 3559 649 3 0.45 0 28 4.0297 4.0240 4459 820 4 0.45 0 28 3.9883 4.0187 / / 5 0.45 0 28 3.9706 4.0292 / / 1 0.45 0 90 4.0083 4.0020 4028 753 2 0.45 0 90 4.0175 4.0405 4132 756 3 0.45 0 90 4.0000 4.0045 4009 750 4 0.45 0 90 4.0323 4.0078 / / 5 0.45 0 90 3.9885 4.0148 / / 1 0.50 0 7 4.0083 4.0020 3563 666 2 0.50 0 7 4.0175 4.0405 3454 632 3 0 .50 0 7 4.0000 4.0045 3357 628 4 0.50 0 7 4.0323 4.0078 3222 597 5 0.50 0 7 3.9885 4.0148 / /

PAGE 180

180 Table A16 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average Width (in) Average Depth (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Flexural Strength (psi) 1 0.50 0 14 3.9887 4.0305 3645 675 2 0.50 0 14 4.0102 4.0108 3532 657 3 0.50 0 14 4.0063 4.0025 3337 624 4 0.50 0 14 3.9553 4.0170 3627 682 5 0.50 0 14 3.9822 4.0255 3732 694 1 0.50 0 28 4.0035 4.0150 3679 684 2 0.50 0 28 4.0160 4.0306 3686 678 3 0.50 0 28 4.0067 4.0238 3741 692 4 0.50 0 28 3.9986 4.0156 3514 654 5 0.50 0 28 3.9826 4.0145 3867 723 1 0.50 0 90 3.9880 3.9880 3677 696 2 0.50 0 90 3.9880 3.9880 3577 677 3 0.50 0 90 3.9880 3.9880 3746 709 4 0.50 0 90 / / / / 5 0.50 0 90 / / / / 1 0.55 0 7 4.0200 4.0200 3075 568 2 0.55 0 7 4.0195 4.0205 3297 609 3 0.55 0 7 4.0000 4.0000 3248 609 4 0.55 0 7 4.0970 4.0167 3090 561 5 0.55 0 7 4.1251 4.0161 3393 612 1 0.55 0 14 4.1145 4.0510 3618 643 2 0.55 0 14 4.1511 4.0008 3522 636 3 0.55 0 14 4.0820 4.0223 3187 579 4 0.55 0 14 4.0230 4.0381 3499 640 5 0.55 0 14 4.0085 4.0193 3502 649 1 0.55 0 28 4.0680 4.0680 4103 731 2 0.55 0 28 4.0680 4.0680 3487 622 3 0.55 0 28 4.0680 4.0680 3611 644 4 0.55 0 28 4.0680 4.0680 3703 660 1 0.55 0 90 4.0070 4.0 070 3670 685 2 0.55 0 90 4.0070 4.0070 3487 650 3 0.55 0 90 4.0070 4.0070 3780 705 Table A17 Flexural strength test data for concrete containing RAP 1 Specimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average Width (in) Average Depth (in) Failure L oa d (lbs) Flexural Strength (psi) 1 0.50 20 7 4.0205 4.0200 2741 506 2 0.50 20 7 4.0205 4.0205 2757 509 3 0.50 20 7 4.0210 4.0190 2715 502

PAGE 181

181 Table A17 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average Width (in) Average Depth (in) Fai lure L oad (lbs) Flexural Strength (psi) 4 0.50 20 7 4.0200 4.0200 2571 475 5 0.50 20 7 4.0195 4.0205 2635 487 1 0.50 20 14 4.0000 4.0000 3004 563 2 0.50 20 14 4.0000 4.0000 2952 554 3 0.50 20 14 4.0000 4.0000 3242 608 4 0.50 20 14 4.0000 4.0000 2510 471 5 0.50 20 14 4.0000 4.0000 2693 505 1 0.50 20 28 4.0000 4.0000 3084 578 2 0.50 20 28 4.0000 4.0000 2990 561 3 0.50 20 28 4.0000 4.0000 3022 567 4 0.50 20 28 4.0000 4.0000 2913 546 1 0.50 20 90 4.0140 4.0150 2750 510 2 0.50 20 90 4.0140 4.0150 28 32 525 3 0.50 20 90 4.0140 4.0150 2824 524 4 0.50 20 90 4.0140 4.0150 2714 503 5 0.50 20 90 4.0140 4.0150 2896 537 1 0.50 40 7 4.0950 4.0950 2762 483 2 0.50 40 7 4.0950 4.0950 2729 477 3 0.50 40 7 4.0950 4.0950 2593 453 1 0.50 40 14 4.0210 4.0210 27 18 502 2 0.50 40 14 4.0210 4.0210 2795 516 3 0.50 40 14 4.0210 4.0210 2636 487 4 0.50 40 14 4.0210 4.0210 3010 556 5 0.50 40 14 4.0210 4.0210 2749 507 1 0.50 40 28 4.0030 4.0030 3033 567 2 0.50 40 28 4.0030 4.0030 3102 580 3 0.50 40 28 4.0030 4.0030 3088 578 1 0.50 40 90 4.0030 4.0030 3138 587 2 0.50 40 90 4.0030 4.0030 3126 585 1 0.50 70 7 4.0115 4.0115 2060 383 2 0.50 70 7 4.0115 4.0115 1966 365 3 0.50 70 7 4.0115 4.0115 2141 398 4 0.50 70 7 4.0115 4.0115 2074 386 5 0.50 70 7 4.0115 4.0115 2 035 378 1 0.50 70 14 4.0115 4.0115 2330 433 2 0.50 70 14 4.0115 4.0115 2197 408 3 0.50 70 14 4.0115 4.0115 2226 414 4 0.50 70 14 4.0115 4.0115 2270 422 5 0.50 70 14 4.0115 4.0115 2276 423 1 0.50 70 28 3.9800 3.9800 2379 453

PAGE 182

182 Table A17 Continued Spe cimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average Width (in) Average Depth (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Flexural Strength (psi) 2 0.50 70 28 3.9800 3.9800 2234 425 3 0.50 70 28 3.9800 3.9800 2520 480 4 0.50 70 28 3.9800 3.9800 2421 461 5 0.50 70 28 3. 9800 3.9800 2345 446 1 0.50 70 90 3.9945 3.9945 2450 461 2 0.50 70 90 3.9945 3.9945 2742 516 3 0.50 70 90 3.9945 3.9945 2594 488 4 0.50 70 90 3.9945 3.9945 2801 527 5 0.50 70 90 3.9945 3.9945 2461 463 1 0.50 100 7 4.0275 4.0275 1567 288 2 0.50 100 7 4.0275 4.0275 1582 291 3 0.50 100 7 4.0275 4.0275 1583 291 4 0.50 100 7 4.0275 4.0275 1739 319 5 0.50 100 7 4.0275 4.0275 1724 317 1 0.50 100 14 4.0000 4.0000 1681 315 2 0.50 100 14 4.0000 4.0000 2026 380 3 0.50 100 14 4.0000 4.0000 1926 361 4 0.50 100 14 4.0000 4.0000 1693 317 5 0.50 100 14 4.0000 4.0000 / / 1 0.50 100 28 4.0000 4.0000 2245 421 2 0.50 100 28 4.0000 4.0000 1988 373 3 0.50 100 28 4.0000 4.0000 2278 427 4 0.50 100 28 4.0000 4.0000 1905 357 5 0.50 100 28 4.0000 4.0000 / / 1 0.50 100 90 4.0400 4.0400 2271 413 2 0.50 100 90 4.0400 4.0400 2287 416 3 0.50 100 90 4.0400 4.0400 2033 370 4 0.50 100 90 4.0400 4.0400 2323 423 5 0.50 100 90 4.0400 4.0400 2216 403 Table A18 Flexural strength test data for concrete containing RAP 2 Sp ecimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average Width (in) Average Depth (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Flexural Strength (psi) 1 0.50 20 7 / / / / 2 0.50 20 7 4.0330 4.0330 2700 494 3 0.50 20 7 4.0330 4.0330 2951 540 1 0.50 20 14 4.0700 4.0700 3413 607 2 0.50 20 14 4.0700 4.0700 3297 587 3 0.50 20 14 4.0700 4.0700 3367 599

PAGE 183

183 Table A18 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average Width (in) Average Depth (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Flexural Strength (psi) 1 0.50 20 28 4.0340 4.0 252 3177 583 2 0.50 20 28 4.0057 4.0208 3225 598 3 0.50 20 28 3.9808 4.0337 3067 568 1 0.50 20 90 3.9293 4.0058 3572 680 2 0.50 20 90 4.0633 4.0178 3215 588 3 0.50 20 90 4.1113 4.0238 3498 631 1 0.50 40 7 4.0620 4.0620 2666 477 2 0.50 40 7 4.0620 4. 0620 2573 461 3 0.50 40 7 4.0620 4.0620 2552 457 1 0.50 40 14 4.0450 4.0450 2663 483 2 0.50 40 14 4.0450 4.0450 2805 509 3 0.50 40 14 4.0450 4.0450 2509 455 1 0.50 40 28 4.0513 4.1100 2878 505 2 0.50 40 28 4.0312 4.1640 3201 550 3 0.50 40 28 4.0067 4.0330 2697 497 1 0.50 40 90 4.0550 4.0275 2850 520 2 0.50 40 90 4.0865 4.0063 2919 534 1 0.50 70 7 4.0830 4.0830 1996 352 2 0.50 70 7 4.0830 4.0830 2199 388 3 0.50 70 7 4.0830 4.0830 2272 401 1 0.50 70 14 4.0223 4.0392 2082 381 2 0.50 70 14 4.1100 4.0128 2088 379 3 0.50 70 14 4.0222 4.1655 2291 394 1 0.50 70 28 3.9750 4.0117 2162 406 2 0.50 70 28 4.1203 3.9990 2250 410 3 0.50 70 28 4.0535 4.1382 2401 415 1 0.50 70 90 4.0228 4.0068 2343 435 2 0.50 70 90 4.0768 4.0303 2335 423 3 0.50 70 90 4.14 92 4.0327 2157 384 1 0.50 100 7 4.0460 4.0460 1858 337 2 0.50 100 7 4.0460 4.0460 1830 332 1 0.50 100 14 4.0400 4.1082 2117 373 2 0.50 100 14 4.0476 4.0410 1952 354 3 0.50 100 14 4.0867 4.0100 1959 358 1 0.50 100 28 4.0587 3.9953 1967 364 2 0.50 100 28 4.0405 4.0153 2031 374 3 0.50 100 28 4.0350 4.0443 2045 372 1 0.50 100 90 4.0727 4.0283 2108 383 2 0.50 100 90 4.1205 4.0477 2033 361 3 0.50 100 90 4.0633 4.0378 2000 362

PAGE 184

184 Table A19 Flexural strength test data for concrete containing RAP 3 Specime n Number W/C RAP 3 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average Width (in) Average Depth (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Flexural Strength (psi) 1 0.50 20 7 4.0997 4.0202 2860 518 2 0.50 20 7 4.0997 4.0053 3015 550 3 0.50 20 7 4.0350 4.0223 2759 507 1 0.50 20 14 4.1565 4. 0470 3075 542 2 0.50 20 14 4.0353 4.0306 2825 517 3 0.50 20 14 4.1038 4.0196 2987 541 1 0.50 20 28 4.1090 4.0086 3153 573 2 0.50 20 28 4.0570 4.0448 2870 519 3 0.50 20 28 4.0970 4.0167 3400 617 1 0.50 20 90 4.1251 4.0161 3237 584 2 0.50 20 90 4.1145 4.0510 3479 618 3 0.50 20 90 4.1511 4.0008 3214 580 1 0.50 40 7 4.0820 4.0223 2572 467 2 0.50 40 7 4.0230 4.0381 2570 470 3 0.50 40 7 4.0421 4.0185 2596 477 1 0.50 40 14 4.0538 4.0148 2617 481 2 0.50 40 14 4.0023 4.0230 2483 460 3 0.50 40 14 4.0455 4.0258 2606 477 1 0.50 40 28 4.0173 4.0183 2639 488 2 0.50 40 28 4.0580 4.0088 2558 471 3 0.50 40 28 4.0462 4.0247 2600 476 1 0.50 40 90 4.0361 3.9993 2717 505 2 0.50 40 90 3.9990 4.0371 2696 496 3 0.50 40 90 4.0376 4.0366 2990 545 1 0.50 70 7 4.08 85 4.0031 2297 421 2 0.50 70 7 4.0915 4.0266 2292 415 3 0.50 70 7 4.0241 4.0001 2100 391 1 0.50 70 14 4.0213 4.0338 2119 389 2 0.50 70 14 4.0882 4.0650 2263 402 3 0.50 70 14 4.0276 4.0793 2100 376 1 0.50 70 28 4.0282 4.0087 2179 404 2 0.50 70 28 4.0 323 4.0078 2049 380 3 0.50 70 28 3.9885 4.0148 2010 375 1 0.50 70 90 4.0870 4.0120 2444 446 2 0.50 70 90 4.0206 4.0160 2370 439 3 0.50 70 90 4.0228 4.0573 2422 439 1 0.50 100 7 3.9975 4.0316 1723 318 2 0.50 100 7 4.0800 4.0162 1729 315 3 0.50 100 7 4.0297 4.0240 1810 333 1 0.50 100 14 3.9883 4.0187 1661 309

PAGE 185

185 Table A19 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 3 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average Width (in) Average Depth (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Flexural Strength (psi) 2 0.50 100 14 3.9706 4.0292 1836 342 3 0.50 100 14 4.0105 4.0297 1741 321 1 0.50 100 28 3.9790 4.0063 1746 328 2 0.50 100 28 3.9732 4.0057 1804 340 3 0.50 100 28 4.0083 4.0175 1934 359 1 0.50 100 90 3.9960 4.0245 1886 350 2 0.50 100 90 4.0518 4.0245 2020 369 3 0.50 100 90 / / / / Table A20 Flexural strength test data for concrete containing RAP 4 Specimen Number W/C RAP 4 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average Width (in) Average Depth (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Flexural Strength (psi) 1 0.50 20 7 4.1211 4.0300 3144 564 2 0.50 20 7 4.0596 4.03 91 3186 577 3 0.50 20 7 4.0815 4.0171 3023 551 1 0.50 20 14 4.0151 4.0045 3054 569 2 0.50 20 14 4.0305 4.0110 2913 539 3 0.50 20 14 4.0873 4.0240 3000 544 1 0.50 20 28 4.0760 4.0210 3346 609 2 0.50 20 28 4.0358 4.0236 3243 596 3 0.50 20 28 4.0125 4. 0031 3139 586 1 0.50 20 90 4.0408 4.0190 3493 642 2 0.50 20 90 4.1495 4.0072 3270 589 3 0.50 20 90 4.0778 4.0283 3448 625 1 0.50 40 7 4.0768 4.0203 2647 482 2 0.50 40 7 4.0508 4.0065 2320 428 3 0.50 40 7 4.0396 4.0341 2555 466 1 0.50 40 14 4.0650 4. 0135 2590 475 2 0.50 40 14 3.9986 4.0020 2714 509 3 0.50 40 14 4.0416 4.0165 2210 407 1 0.50 40 28 4.0058 4.0596 2889 525 2 0.50 40 28 4.0870 4.0221 2869 521 3 0.50 40 28 4.0486 3.9970 2674 496 1 0.50 40 90 4.0242 4.0228 2950 544 2 0.50 40 90 4.0482 4.0363 3177 578 3 0.50 40 90 4.0635 4.0132 2913 534 1 0.50 70 7 4.0461 4.0123 1972 363 2 0.50 70 7 4.0908 4.0140 1973 359 3 0.50 70 7 4.0785 4.0213 2092 381

PAGE 186

186 Table A20 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 4 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Average Width (in) A verage Depth (in) Failure L oad (lbs) Flexural Strength (psi) 1 0.50 70 14 4.0570 4.0170 2166 397 2 0.50 70 14 4.0108 4.0136 2255 419 3 0.50 70 14 4.0905 4.0735 2330 412 1 0.50 70 28 4.0778 4.0268 2267 411 2 0.50 70 28 4.0525 4.0150 2405 442 3 0.50 70 28 4.0547 4.0155 2352 432 1 0.50 70 90 4.0268 4.0090 2515 466 2 0.50 70 90 4.0645 4.0442 2713 490 3 0.50 70 90 4.0085 4.0193 2502 464 1 0.50 100 7 4.0333 4.0246 2078 382 2 0.50 100 7 4.1691 4.0155 1875 335 3 0.50 100 7 4.0100 4.0280 1899 350 1 0.50 100 14 4.0146 4.0463 1890 345 2 0.50 100 14 4.0496 4.0253 1994 365 3 0.50 100 14 4.0700 4.0130 1927 353 1 0.50 100 28 4.0693 4.0110 1992 365 2 0.50 100 28 4.0385 4.0405 1868 340 3 0.50 100 28 4.0892 4.0078 2011 367 1 0.50 100 90 4.0425 4.0037 2128 3 94 2 0.50 100 90 4.0067 4.0000 2221 416 3 0.50 100 90 4.0347 4.0000 2343 436 Table A21 Modulus of toughness data for concrete containing no RAP Specimen Number W/C RAP (%) Curing P eriod (days) Modulus of T oughness (lb in/in 3 ) 1 0.45 0 28 0.07 2 0.45 0 28 0.18 1 0.45 0 90 0.08 2 0.45 0 90 0.07 3 0.45 0 90 0.08 1 0.50 0 28 0.25 2 0.50 0 28 0.10 1 0.50 0 90 0.11 2 0.50 0 90 0.24 3 0.50 0 90 0.08 4 0.50 0 90 0.06 5 0.50 0 90 / 1 0.55 0 28 0.21 2 0.55 0 28 0.16

PAGE 187

187 Table A21 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP (%) Curing Period (days) Modulus of Toughness (lb in/in 3 ) 1 0.55 0 90 0.06 2 0.55 0 90 0.05 3 0.55 0 90 0.06 Table A 22 Modulus of toughness data for concrete containing RAP 1 Specimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Modulus o f T oughness (lb in/in 3 ) 1 0.50 20 90 0.22 2 0.50 20 90 0.28 3 0.50 20 90 0.30 4 0.50 20 90 0.26 5 0.50 20 90 / 1 0.50 40 90 0.36 2 0.50 40 09 0.36 3 0.50 40 90 0.53 4 0.50 40 90 / 5 0.50 40 90 / 1 0.50 70 90 0.63 2 0.50 70 90 0.50 3 0.50 70 90 0.62 4 0.50 70 90 0.46 5 0.50 70 90 / 1 0.50 100 90 0.66 2 0.50 100 90 0.72 3 0.50 100 90 0.82 4 0.50 100 90 0.83 5 0.50 100 90 / Table A 23 Modulus of toughness data for concrete containing RAP 2 Specimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing Period (days ) Modulus of Toughness (lb in/in 3 ) 1 0.50 20 7 0.15 2 0.50 20 7 0.26 3 0.50 20 7 / 1 0.50 20 14 0.33 2 0.50 20 14 0.19 3 0.50 20 14 /

PAGE 188

188 Table A23 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing Period (days) Modulus of Toughness (lb in/in 3 ) 1 0.50 2 0 28 0.10 2 0.50 20 28 0.26 3 0.50 20 28 0.17 1 0.50 20 90 0.29 2 0.50 20 90 0.24 3 0.50 20 90 / 1 0.50 40 7 0.33 2 0.50 40 7 0.18 3 0.50 40 7 0.18 1 0.50 40 14 0.35 2 0.50 40 14 0.25 3 0.50 40 14 0.31 1 0.50 40 28 0.32 2 0.50 40 28 0.37 3 0. 50 40 28 0.30 1 0.50 40 90 0.24 2 0.50 40 90 0.44 3 0.50 40 90 0.31 1 0.50 70 7 0.66 2 0.50 70 7 0.70 3 0.50 70 7 / 1 0.50 70 14 0.55 2 0.50 70 14 0.60 3 0.50 70 14 / 1 0.50 70 28 / 2 0.50 70 28 0.60 3 0.50 70 28 0.24 1 0.50 70 90 0.38 2 0.50 70 90 0.59 3 0.50 70 90 0.29 1 0.50 100 7 0.47 1 0.50 100 14 0.77 2 0.50 100 14 0.97 3 0.50 100 14 0.52 1 0.50 100 28 0.98 2 0.50 100 28 0.55

PAGE 189

189 Table A23 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing Period (days) Modulus of Toughness (lb in/in 3 ) 3 0.50 100 28 0.68 1 0.50 100 90 0.65 2 0.50 100 90 0.69 3 0.50 100 90 / Table A24 Modulus of toughness data for concrete containing RAP 3 Specimen Number W/C RAP 3 (%) Curing Period (days) Modulus of Toughness (lb in/in 3 ) 1 0.50 20 7 0.23 2 0.50 20 7 0.29 3 0.50 20 7 0.27 1 0.50 20 14 0.36 2 0.50 20 14 0.10 3 0.50 20 14 0.16 1 0.50 20 28 0.31 2 0.50 20 28 0.21 3 0.50 20 28 / 1 0.50 20 90 0.34 2 0.50 20 90 0.29 3 0.50 20 90 / 1 0.50 40 7 0.40 2 0.50 40 7 0.40 3 0.50 40 7 0.45 1 0.50 40 14 0.36 2 0.50 40 14 0.37 3 0.50 40 14 0.46 1 0.50 40 28 0.23 2 0.50 40 28 0.43 3 0.50 40 28 0.12 1 0.50 40 90 0.34 2 0.50 40 90 0.49 3 0.50 40 90 0.51 1 0.50 70 7 0.62 2 0.50 70 7 0.51 3 0.50 70 7 / 1 0.50 70 14 0.64

PAGE 190

190 Table A24 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 3 (%) Curing Period (days) Modulus of Toughness (lb in/in 3 ) 2 0.50 70 14 0.22 3 0.50 70 14 / 1 0.50 70 28 0.46 2 0.50 70 28 0.38 3 0.50 70 28 0.16 1 0.50 70 90 0.46 2 0.50 70 90 0.41 3 0.50 70 90 0.57 1 0.50 100 7 1.03 2 0 .50 100 7 / 3 0.50 100 7 / 1 0.50 100 14 0.33 2 0.50 100 14 0.50 3 0.50 100 14 0.69 1 0.50 100 28 1.00 2 0.50 100 28 0.92 3 0.50 100 28 0.14 1 0.50 100 90 0.56 2 0.50 100 90 0.40 3 0.50 100 90 / Table A25 Modulus of toughness data for concrete containing RAP 4 Specimen Number W/C RAP 4 (%) Curing Period (days) Modulus of Toughness (lb in/in 3 ) 1 0.50 20 7 0.18 2 0.50 20 7 0.18 3 0.50 20 7 / 1 0.50 20 14 0.13 2 0.50 20 14 0.35 3 0.50 20 14 0.38 1 0.50 20 28 0.24 2 0.50 20 28 0.44 3 0.50 20 28 0.25 1 0.50 20 90 0.26 2 0.50 20 90 0.17 3 0.50 20 90 0.35

PAGE 191

191 Table A25 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 4 (%) Curing Period (days) Modulus of Toughness (lb in/in 3 ) 1 0.50 40 7 0.19 2 0.50 40 7 0.33 3 0.50 40 7 / 1 0.50 40 14 0.25 2 0.50 40 14 0.19 3 0.50 40 14 0.20 1 0.50 40 28 0.42 2 0.50 40 28 0.43 3 0.50 40 28 / 1 0.50 40 90 0.29 2 0.50 40 90 0.54 3 0.50 40 90 0.38 1 0.50 70 7 0.54 2 0.50 70 7 0.48 3 0.50 70 7 0.34 1 0.50 70 14 0.38 2 0.50 70 14 0.47 3 0.50 70 14 0.49 1 0.50 70 28 0.35 2 0.50 70 28 0.73 3 0.50 70 28 0.43 1 0.50 70 90 0.31 2 0.50 70 90 0.46 3 0.50 70 90 0.30 1 0.50 100 7 0.58 2 0.50 100 7 0.57 3 0.50 100 7 0.11 1 0.50 100 14 / 2 0.50 100 14 0.43 3 0.50 100 14 0.40 1 0.50 100 28 0.84 2 0.50 100 28 0.57 3 0.50 100 28 0.79 1 0.50 100 90 0.53 2 0.50 100 90 0.66 3 0.50 100 90 0.63

PAGE 192

192 Table A26 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing no RAP after air curing Specimen Number W/C RAP (%) Curing P eriod (days) Shrinkage S train (10 6 ) 1 0.45 0 7 30 2 0.45 0 7 50 3 0.45 0 7 80 1 0.45 0 14 240 2 0.45 0 14 300 3 0.45 0 14 320 1 0.45 0 28 260 2 0.45 0 28 180 3 0.46 0 28 300 1 0.45 0 90 430 2 0.45 0 90 360 3 0.45 0 90 490 1 0.50 0 7 290 2 0.50 0 7 130 3 0.50 0 7 130 1 0.50 0 14 240 2 0.50 0 14 310 3 0.50 0 14 180 1 0.50 0 28 290 2 0.50 0 28 260 3 0.50 0 28 240 1 0.50 0 90 320 2 0.50 0 90 220 1 0.55 0 7 100 2 0.55 0 7 20 3 0.55 0 7 120 1 0.55 0 14 100 2 0.55 0 14 80 3 0.55 0 14 40 1 0.55 0 28 170 2 0.55 0 28 50 3 0.55 0 28 60 1 0.55 0 90 310 2 0.55 0 90 230 3 0.55 0 90 190

PAGE 193

193 Table A27 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing RAP 1 after air curing Specimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing P eriod (days) Shrinkage S train (10 6 ) 1 0.50 20 7 90 2 0.50 20 7 90 3 0.50 20 7 120 1 0.50 20 14 170 2 0.50 20 14 170 3 0.50 20 14 170 1 0.50 20 28 270 2 0.50 20 28 220 3 0.50 20 28 210 1 0.50 20 90 490 2 0.50 20 90 520 3 0.50 20 90 500 1 0.50 40 7 120 2 0.50 40 7 50 3 0.50 40 7 0 1 0.50 40 14 220 2 0.50 40 14 130 3 0.50 40 14 70 1 0.50 40 28 340 2 0.50 40 28 240 3 0.50 40 28 200 1 0.50 40 90 520 2 0.50 40 90 460 3 0.50 40 90 370 1 0.50 70 7 80 2 0.50 70 7 100 3 0.50 70 7 50 1 0.50 70 14 40 2 0.50 70 14 130 3 0.50 70 14 100 1 0.50 70 28 140 2 0.50 70 28 320 3 0.5 0 70 28 220 1 0.50 70 90 490 2 0.50 70 90 490 3 0.50 70 90 500 1 0.50 100 7 170

PAGE 194

194 Table A27 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing Period (days) Shrinkage Strain (10 6 ) 2 0.50 100 7 200 3 0.50 100 7 190 1 0.50 100 14 280 2 0.50 100 14 320 3 0.50 100 14 320 1 0.50 100 28 500 2 0.50 100 28 540 3 0.50 100 28 540 1 0.50 100 90 880 2 0.50 100 90 930 3 0.50 100 90 520 Table A28 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing RAP 2 after air curing Specimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing Perio d (days) Shrinkage Strain (10 6 ) 1 0.50 20 7 110 2 0.50 20 7 180 3 0.50 20 7 57 1 0.50 20 14 290 2 0.50 20 14 350 3 0.50 20 14 235 1 0.50 20 28 270 2 0.50 20 28 265 3 0.50 20 28 210 1 0.50 20 90 420 2 0.50 20 90 400 3 0.50 20 90 340 1 0.50 40 7 230 2 0.50 40 7 160 3 0.50 40 7 210 1 0.50 40 14 320 2 0.50 40 14 230 3 0.50 40 14 320 1 0.50 40 28 240 2 0.50 40 28 140 3 0.50 40 28 220 1 0.50 40 90 400

PAGE 195

195 Table A28 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing Period (days) Shrinkage Strai n (10 6 ) 2 0.50 40 90 310 3 0.50 40 90 390 1 0.50 70 7 140 2 0.50 70 7 140 3 0.50 70 7 140 1 0.50 70 14 0 2 0.50 70 14 20 3 0.50 70 14 30 1 0.50 70 28 210 2 0.50 70 28 260 3 0.50 70 28 240 1 0.50 70 90 430 2 0.50 70 90 480 3 0.50 70 90 460 1 0.50 100 7 190 2 0.50 100 7 0 3 0.50 100 7 0 1 0.50 100 14 310 2 0.50 100 14 110 3 0.50 100 14 140 1 0.50 100 28 500 2 0.50 100 28 300 3 0.50 100 28 260 1 0.50 100 90 830 2 0.50 100 90 650 3 0.50 100 90 550 Table A29 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing RAP 3 after air curing Specimen Number W/C RAP 3 (%) Curing Period (days) Shrinkage Strain (10 6 ) 1 0.50 20 7 140 2 0.50 20 7 110 3 0.50 20 7 120 1 0.50 20 14 240 2 0.50 20 14 220 3 0.50 20 14 200 1 0.50 20 28 360

PAGE 196

196 Table A29 C ontinued Specimen Number W/C RAP 3 (%) Curing Period (days) Shrinkage Strain (10 6 ) 2 0.50 20 28 350 3 0.50 20 28 300 1 0.50 20 90 480 2 0.50 20 90 510 3 0.50 20 90 440 1 0.50 40 7 180 2 0.50 40 7 190 3 0.50 40 7 140 1 0.50 40 14 300 2 0.50 40 14 290 3 0.50 40 14 250 1 0.50 40 28 430 2 0.50 40 28 400 3 0.50 40 28 360 1 0.50 40 90 580 2 0.50 40 90 500 3 0.50 40 90 450 1 0.50 70 7 210 2 0.50 70 7 180 3 0.50 70 7 240 1 0.50 70 14 350 2 0.50 70 14 350 3 0.50 70 14 370 1 0.50 70 28 500 2 0.50 70 28 510 3 0.50 70 28 520 1 0.50 70 90 670 2 0.50 70 90 710 3 0.50 70 90 740 1 0.50 100 7 280 2 0.50 100 7 260 3 0.50 100 7 290 1 0.50 100 14 420 2 0.50 100 14 460 3 0.50 100 14 460 1 0.50 100 28 630 2 0.50 100 28 700

PAGE 197

197 Table A29 Contin ued Specimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing Period (days) Shrinkage Strain (10 6 ) 3 0.50 100 28 660 1 0.50 100 90 810 2 0.50 100 90 920 3 0.50 100 90 880 Table A30 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing RAP 4 after air curing Specimen Number W/C R AP 4 (%) Curing Period (days) Shrinkage Strain (10 6 ) 1 0.50 20 7 145 2 0.50 20 7 120 3 0.50 20 7 130 1 0.50 20 14 290 2 0.50 20 14 240 3 0.50 20 14 270 1 0.50 20 28 410 2 0.50 20 28 310 3 0.50 20 28 370 1 0.50 20 90 480 2 0.50 20 90 360 3 0.50 20 90 450 1 0.50 40 7 160 2 0.50 40 7 200 3 0.50 40 7 150 1 0.50 40 14 320 2 0.50 40 14 360 3 0.50 40 14 260 1 0.50 40 28 500 2 0.50 40 28 510 3 0.50 40 28 410 1 0.50 40 90 630 2 0.50 40 90 650 3 0.50 40 90 520 1 0.50 70 7 170 2 0.50 70 7 18 0 3 0.50 70 7 180 1 0.50 70 14 300 2 0.50 70 14 340

PAGE 198

198 Table A30 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 4 (%) Curing Period (days) Shrinkage Strain (10 6 ) 3 0.50 70 14 340 1 0.50 70 28 430 2 0.50 70 28 460 3 0.50 70 28 450 1 0.50 70 90 650 2 0.50 70 90 650 3 0.50 70 90 630 1 0.50 100 7 370 2 0.50 100 7 380 3 0.50 100 7 330 1 0.50 100 14 600 2 0.50 100 14 610 3 0.50 100 14 560 1 0.50 100 28 860 2 0.50 100 28 840 3 0.50 100 28 820 1 0.50 100 90 1170 2 0.50 100 90 1150 3 0.50 100 90 1160 Tab le A31 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing no RAP after moist curing Specimen Number W/C RAP (%) Curing Period (days) Shrinkage Strain (10 6 ) 1 0.45 0 7 50 2 0.45 0 7 30 3 0.45 0 7 70 1 0.45 0 14 120 2 0.45 0 14 70 3 0.45 0 14 90 1 0.45 0 28 20 2 0.45 0 28 30 3 0.45 0 28 80 1 0.45 0 90 30 2 0.45 0 90 30 3 0.45 0 90 50 1 0.50 0 7 130 3 0.50 0 7 70 3 0.50 0 7 70

PAGE 199

199 Table A31 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP (%) Curing Period (days) Shrinkage Strain (10 6 ) 1 0.50 0 14 60 2 0.50 0 14 60 3 0.50 0 14 20 1 0.50 0 28 40 2 0.50 0 28 120 3 0.50 0 28 70 1 0.50 0 90 10 2 0.50 0 90 110 3 0.50 0 90 60 1 0.55 0 7 100 2 0.55 0 7 70 3 0.55 0 7 20 1 0.55 0 14 30 2 0.55 0 14 110 3 0.55 0 14 190 1 0.55 0 28 40 2 0.55 0 28 150 3 0.55 0 28 240 1 0.55 0 90 20 2 0.55 0 90 130 3 0.55 0 90 160 Table A32 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing RAP 1 after moist curing Specimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing Period (days) Shrinkage Strain (10 6 ) 1 0.50 20 7 20 2 0 .50 20 7 90 3 0.50 20 7 / 1 0.50 20 14 30 2 0.50 20 14 80 3 0.50 20 14 / 1 0.50 20 28 50 2 0.50 20 28 110 3 0.50 20 28 / 1 0.50 20 90 90 2 0.50 20 90 0 3 0.50 20 90 /

PAGE 200

200 Table A32 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing Period (days) Shrinkage Strain (10 6 ) 1 0.50 40 7 150 2 0.50 40 7 80 3 0.50 40 7 70 1 0.50 40 14 200 2 0.50 40 14 80 3 0.50 40 14 80 1 0.50 40 28 150 2 0.50 40 28 40 3 0.50 40 28 60 1 0.50 40 90 120 2 0.50 40 90 10 3 0.50 40 90 90 1 0.50 70 7 189 2 0.50 70 7 300 3 0.50 70 7 290 1 0.50 70 14 180 2 0.50 70 14 270 3 0.50 70 14 260 1 0.50 70 28 240 2 0.50 70 28 330 3 0.50 70 28 340 1 0.50 70 90 120 2 0.50 70 90 260 3 0.50 70 90 290 1 0.50 100 7 10 0 2 0.50 100 7 160 3 0.50 100 7 140 1 0.50 100 14 160 2 0.50 100 14 210 3 0.50 100 14 220 1 0.50 100 28 160 2 0.50 100 28 230 3 0.50 100 28 220 1 0.50 100 90 210 2 0.50 100 90 240 3 0.50 100 90 280

PAGE 201

201 Table A33 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing RAP 2 after moist curing Specimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing Period (days) Shrinkage Strain (10 6 ) 1 0.50 20 7 170 2 0.50 20 7 150 3 0.50 20 7 90 1 0.50 20 14 190 2 0.50 20 14 270 3 0.50 20 14 170 1 0.50 20 28 40 2 0.50 20 28 40 3 0.50 20 28 50 1 0 .50 20 90 30 2 0.50 20 90 20 3 0.50 20 90 30 1 0.50 40 7 30 2 0.50 40 7 60 3 0.50 40 7 / 1 0.50 40 14 70 2 0.50 40 14 70 3 0.50 40 14 0 1 0.50 40 28 100 2 0.50 40 28 120 3 0.50 40 28 220 1 0.50 40 90 150 2 0.50 40 90 170 3 0.50 40 90 220 1 0.50 70 7 / 2 0.50 70 7 50 3 0.50 70 7 10 1 0.50 70 14 170 2 0.50 70 14 320 3 0.50 70 14 290 1 0.50 70 28 160 2 0.50 70 28 320 3 0.50 70 28 290 1 0.50 70 90 150 2 0.50 70 90 320 3 0.50 70 90 300

PAGE 202

202 Table A33 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing Period (days) Shrinkage Strain (10 6 ) 1 0.50 100 7 320 2 0.50 100 7 290 3 0.50 100 7 330 1 0.50 100 14 300 2 0.50 100 14 270 3 0.50 100 14 310 1 0.50 100 28 340 2 0.50 100 28 300 3 0.50 100 28 330 1 0.50 100 9 0 350 2 0.50 100 90 290 3 0.50 100 90 330 Table A34 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing RAP 3 after moist curing Specimen Number W/C RAP 3 (%) Curing Period (days) Shrinkage Strain (10 6 ) 1 0.50 20 7 60 2 0.50 20 7 80 3 0.50 20 7 10 1 0.50 20 14 50 2 0.50 20 14 70 3 0.50 20 14 10 1 0.50 20 28 60 2 0.50 20 28 90 3 0.50 20 28 20 1 0.50 20 90 10 2 0.50 20 90 40 3 0.50 20 90 / 1 0.50 40 7 10 2 0.50 40 7 90 3 0.50 40 7 / 1 0.50 40 14 10 2 0.50 40 14 70 3 0.50 40 1 4 / 1 0.50 40 28 20 2 0.50 40 28 70 3 0.50 40 28 /

PAGE 203

203 Table A34 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 3 (%) Curing Period (days) Shrinkage Strain (10 6 ) 1 0.50 40 90 30 2 0.50 40 90 100 3 0.50 40 90 / 1 0.50 70 7 70 2 0.50 70 7 160 3 0.50 70 7 40 1 0.50 70 14 90 2 0.50 70 14 180 3 0.50 70 14 60 1 0.50 70 28 60 2 0.50 70 28 150 3 0.50 70 28 80 1 0.50 70 90 60 2 0.50 70 90 140 3 0.50 70 90 60 1 0.50 100 7 20 2 0.50 100 7 20 3 0.50 100 7 10 1 0.50 100 14 40 2 0.50 100 14 10 3 0.50 100 14 30 1 0.50 100 28 30 2 0.50 100 28 20 3 0.50 100 28 50 1 0.50 100 90 60 2 0.50 100 90 20 3 0.50 100 90 20 Table A35 Shrinkage test data for concrete containing RAP 4 after moist curing Specimen Number W/C RAP 4 (%) Curing Period (days) Shrinkage Strain (10 6 ) 1 0.50 20 7 50 2 0.50 20 7 100 3 0.50 20 7 30 1 0.50 20 14 30 2 0.50 20 14 40 3 0.50 20 14 30

PAGE 204

204 Table A35 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 4 (%) Curing Period (days) Shrinkage Strain (10 6 ) 1 0.50 20 28 30 2 0.50 20 28 60 3 0.50 20 28 0 1 0.50 20 90 60 2 0.50 20 90 80 3 0.50 20 90 20 1 0.50 40 7 150 2 0.50 40 7 70 3 0.50 40 7 140 1 0.50 40 14 140 2 0.50 40 14 20 3 0.50 40 14 100 1 0.50 40 28 100 2 0.50 40 28 30 3 0.50 40 28 70 1 0.50 40 90 120 2 0.50 40 90 0 3 0.50 40 90 90 1 0.50 70 7 80 2 0.50 70 7 80 3 0.50 70 7 60 1 0.50 70 14 40 2 0.50 70 14 80 3 0.50 70 14 20 1 0.50 70 28 30 2 0.50 70 28 90 3 0.50 70 28 50 1 0.50 70 90 60 2 0.50 70 90 90 3 0.50 7 0 90 60 1 0.50 100 7 40 2 0.50 100 7 50 3 0.50 100 7 20 1 0.50 100 14 30 2 0.50 100 14 0 3 0.50 100 14 30 1 0.50 100 28 10

PAGE 205

205 Table A35 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 4 (%) Curing Period (days) Shrinkage Strain (10 6 ) 2 0.50 100 28 20 3 0.50 100 28 50 1 0.50 100 90 20 2 0.50 100 90 20 3 0.50 100 90 50 Table A36 Coefficient of thermal expansion test data for concrete containing no RAP Specimen Number W/C RAP (%) Curing P eriod (days) Coefficient of Thermal E xpansion (10 6 in/in/ F) 1 0.45 0 7 4.75 2 0.45 0 7 4.46 3 0.45 0 7 4.48 1 0.45 0 14 5.04 2 0.45 0 14 4.68 3 0.45 0 14 / 1 0.45 0 28 4.67 2 0.45 0 28 5.01 3 0.45 0 28 / 1 0.45 0 90 3.92 2 0.45 0 90 3.32 3 0.45 0 90 / 1 0.50 0 7 4.42 2 0.50 0 7 4.64 3 0.50 0 7 4.85 1 0.50 0 14 3.54 2 0.50 0 14 3.82 3 0.50 0 14 / 1 0.50 0 28 4.40 2 0.50 0 28 4.30 3 0.50 0 28 / 1 0.50 0 90 4.00 2 0.50 0 90 4.08 3 0.50 0 90 / 1 0.55 0 7 / 2 0.55 0 7 / 3 0.55 0 7 /

PAGE 206

206 Table A36 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP (%) Curing Perio d (days) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (10 6 in/in/ F) 1 0.55 0 14 4.74 2 0.55 0 14 4.30 3 0.55 0 14 / 1 0.55 0 28 4.40 2 0.55 0 28 3.53 3 0.55 0 28 / 1 0.55 0 90 3.80 2 0.55 0 90 3.14 3 0.55 0 90 / Table A37 Coefficient of thermal expansio n test data for concrete containing RAP 1 Specimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing Period (days) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (10 6 in/in/ F) 1 0.50 20 7 5.08 2 0.50 20 7 4.67 3 0.50 20 7 / 1 0.50 20 14 5.23 2 0.50 20 14 4.76 3 0.50 20 14 / 1 0.50 20 28 5.04 2 0.50 20 28 4.74 3 0.50 20 28 / 1 0.50 20 90 4.89 2 0.50 20 90 4.86 3 0.50 20 90 / 1 0.50 40 7 4.86 2 0.50 40 7 4.88 3 0.50 40 7 / 1 0.50 40 14 4.85 2 0.50 40 14 4.84 3 0.50 40 14 / 1 0.50 40 28 4.99 2 0.50 40 28 4.70 3 0.50 40 28 /

PAGE 207

20 7 Table A37 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 1 (%) Curing Period (days) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (10 6 in/in/ F) 1 0.50 40 90 5.00 2 0.50 40 90 4.60 3 0.50 40 90 / 1 0.50 70 7 5.22 2 0.50 70 7 5.32 3 0.50 70 7 / 1 0.50 70 14 4.98 2 0. 50 70 14 4.88 3 0.50 70 14 / 1 0.50 70 28 5.64 2 0.50 70 28 5.27 3 0.50 70 28 / 1 0.50 70 90 5.04 2 0.50 70 90 5.27 3 0.50 70 90 / 1 0.50 100 7 5.48 2 0.50 100 7 5.49 3 0.50 100 7 / 1 0.50 100 14 5.80 2 0.50 100 14 6.05 3 0.50 100 14 / 1 0.50 100 28 5.94 2 0.50 100 28 6.58 3 0.50 100 28 / 1 0.50 100 90 5.94 2 0.50 100 90 5.80 3 0.50 100 90 / Table A38 Coefficient of thermal expansion test data for concrete containing RAP 2 Specimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing Period (days) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (10 6 in/in/ F) 1 0.50 20 7 4.49 2 0.50 20 7 4.84 3 0.50 20 7 4.42

PAGE 208

208 Table A38 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing Period (days) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (10 6 in/in/ F) 1 0.50 20 14 4.35 2 0.50 20 14 4.97 3 0.50 20 14 4.75 1 0.50 20 28 4.24 2 0.50 20 28 5.01 3 0.50 20 28 / 1 0.50 20 90 4.50 2 0.50 20 90 5.02 3 0.50 20 90 / 1 0.50 40 7 4.67 2 0.50 40 7 4.87 3 0.50 40 7 5.08 1 0.50 40 14 4.52 2 0.50 40 14 5.16 3 0.50 40 14 4.90 1 0.50 40 28 4.95 2 0.50 40 28 4.92 3 0.50 40 28 / 1 0.50 40 90 5.33 2 0.50 40 90 5.36 3 0.50 40 90 / 1 0.50 70 7 5.83 2 0.50 70 7 5.57 3 0.50 70 7 4.99 1 0.50 70 14 5.48 2 0.50 70 14 3.98 3 0.50 70 14 / 1 0.50 70 28 4.62 2 0.50 70 28 4.59 3 0.50 70 28 5.29 1 0.50 70 90 4.68 2 0.50 70 90 4.89 3 0.50 70 90 4.72 1 0.50 100 7 5.17 2 0.50 100 7 5.21

PAGE 209

209 Table A38 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 2 (%) Curing Period (days) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (10 6 in/in/ F) 3 0.50 100 7 5.58 1 0.50 100 14 6.02 2 0.50 100 14 4.72 3 0.50 100 14 / 1 0.50 100 28 5.13 2 0.50 100 28 5.53 3 0.50 100 28 6.16 1 0.50 100 90 5.28 2 0.50 100 90 5.38 3 0.50 100 90 5.27 Table A39 Coefficient of thermal expansion test data for concrete containing RAP 3 Specimen Numbe r W/C RAP 3 (%) Curing Period (days) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (10 6 in/in/ F) 1 0.50 20 7 4.65 2 0.50 20 7 4.99 3 0.50 20 7 4.75 1 0.50 20 14 4.47 2 0.50 20 14 4.75 3 0.50 20 14 4.01 1 0.50 20 28 4.64 2 0.50 20 28 4.91 3 0.50 20 28 4.55 1 0.50 20 90 / 2 0.50 20 90 / 3 0.50 20 90 / 1 0.50 40 7 4.27 2 0.50 40 7 4.55 3 0.50 40 7 4.24 1 0.50 40 14 4.15 2 0.50 40 14 4.76 3 0.50 40 14 4.31 1 0.50 40 28 4.50 2 0.50 40 28 4.82

PAGE 210

210 Table A39 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 3 (%) Curing Period (days) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (10 6 in/in/ F) 3 0.50 40 28 4.38 1 0.50 40 90 / 2 0.50 40 90 / 3 0.50 40 90 / 1 0.50 70 7 4.77 2 0.50 70 7 4.93 3 0.50 70 7 4.49 1 0.50 70 14 3.87 2 0.50 70 14 4.98 3 0.50 70 14 4.20 1 0.50 70 28 4.94 2 0.50 70 28 5.07 3 0.50 70 28 4.49 1 0.50 70 90 / 2 0.50 70 90 / 3 0.50 70 90 / 1 0.50 100 7 4.97 2 0.50 100 7 5.39 3 0.50 100 7 4.07 1 0.50 100 14 4.87 2 0.50 100 14 5.33 3 0.50 100 14 5.20 1 0.50 100 28 4.79 2 0.50 100 28 5.22 3 0.50 100 28 5.16 1 0.50 100 90 4.71 2 0.50 100 90 3.54 Table A40 Coefficient of thermal expansion test data for concrete containing RAP 4 Specimen Number W/C RAP 4 (%) Curing Period (days) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (10 6 in/in/ F) 1 0.50 20 7 4.22 2 0.50 20 7 4.91 3 0.50 20 7 4.22

PAGE 211

211 Table A40 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 4 (%) Curing Period (days) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (10 6 in/in/ F) 1 0.50 20 14 4.85 2 0.50 20 14 4.88 3 0.50 20 14 / 1 0.50 20 28 4.91 2 0.50 20 28 3.87 3 0.50 20 28 4.22 1 0.50 20 90 5.11 2 0.50 20 90 4.24 3 0.50 20 90 5.67 1 0.50 40 7 4.86 2 0.50 40 7 4.71 3 0.50 40 7 4.27 1 0.50 40 14 4.36 2 0.50 40 14 4.44 3 0.50 40 14 4.15 1 0.50 40 28 4.51 2 0.50 40 28 4.50 3 0.50 40 28 4.06 1 0.50 40 90 4.24 2 0.50 40 90 4.25 3 0.50 40 90 5.06 1 0.50 70 7 4.86 2 0.50 70 7 4.69 3 0.50 70 7 4.81 1 0.50 70 14 4.08 2 0.50 70 14 / 3 0.50 70 14 / 1 0.50 70 28 / 2 0.50 70 28 / 3 0.50 70 28 / 1 0.50 70 90 4.07 2 0.50 70 90 4.53 3 0.50 70 90 / 1 0.5 0 100 7 4.95 2 0.50 100 7 4.79

PAGE 212

212 Table A40 Continued Specimen Number W/C RAP 4 (%) Curing Period (days) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (10 6 in/in/ F) 3 0.50 100 7 4.78 1 0.50 100 14 4.97 2 0.50 100 14 4.75 3 0.50 100 14 4.93 1 0.50 100 28 4.40 2 0.50 100 28 4.61 3 0.50 100 28 / 1 0.50 100 90 4.68 2 0.50 100 90 4.76 3 0.50 100 90 /

PAGE 213

213 APPENDIX B STRESS STRAIN PLOT OF RAP CONCRETE Figure B 1 Stress strain plot for concrete mixtures with RAP 2 at 14 days of curing time Figur e B 2 Stress strain plot for concrete mixtures with RAP 2 at 28 days of curing time

PAGE 214

214 Figure B 3 Stress strain plot for concrete mixtures with RAP 2 at 90 days of curing time Figure B 4 Stress strain plot for concrete mixtures with RAP 3 at 7 days of curing time

PAGE 215

215 Figure B 5 Stress strain plot for concrete mixtures with RAP 3 at 28 days of curing time Figure B 6 Stress strain plot for concrete mixtures with RAP 3 at 90 days of curing time

PAGE 216

216 Figure B 7 Stress strain plot for concrete mixtures with RAP 4 at 7 days of curing time Figure B 8 Stress strain plot for concrete mixtures with RAP 4 at 14 days of curing time

PAGE 217

217 F igure B 9 Stress strain plot for concrete mix tures with RAP 4 at 90 days of curing time

PAGE 218

218 APPENDIX C MEPDG INPUT DATA Figure C1 Traffic volume adjustment factors, vehicle class distribution, and hourly truck traffic distribution

PAGE 219

219 Figure C2 Traffic growth factor, general traffic inputs, and axle configuration

PAGE 220

220 Figure C3 Layer 2 input parameters Figure C4 Layer 3 i nput parameters

PAGE 221

221 Figure C4 (Continued)

PAGE 222

222 Figure C5 Layer 4 input parameters

PAGE 223

223 REFERENCES Laboratory, Bulletin No.1, pp. 1 22. ACI 302.1R 04, Guide for Concrete Floor a nd Slab Construction. Al Vol. 6(1), pp. 37 45. vement as Aggregate in University, Bozeman, Montana, pp. 195. Products in Highway Constructio n, NCH RP Synthesis of Highway Practice, No.199, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 92. Tr ansportation Research Board, Record No.1478, pp. 100 106. Crammer Freeze Thaw and Other Performance Measures of Paving Concrete, Transportation Research Board, Record No. 1668, pp 1 8. 251 256. of Recycled Materials and By 99, Our Concrete Environment, Sydney, Australia, pp. 289 301. 18(2) pp. 235. Fuller Journal, Vol. LVII ( 2 ) pp. 67 113. I llinois Highway Construction, Researc h Report No.142, I llinois Department of Transportation. Waste Management Series, Elsevier Science, Oxfo rd, Vol. 1, pp. 121 128.

PAGE 224

224 Research, Vol. 35(10), pp. 2008 2013. Huang, B., Shu, X. and Burdette, E.G., 200 58(5), pp. 313 320. Cement Concrete Pavement. Kang, D.H., Gu for Virgin Aggregates in Road Construction: I Hydraulic and Mechanical Characteristics, Soil Science Society of America, Vol. 75(4), pp. 1265 1275. Mechanical Properties of Cement Bound Recycled Construction Materials, Vol. 160(4), pp. 171 179. egate Gradation 09/5 9026 01 1, Texas Department of Transportation, Texas. Aggregate in Self International Center for Aggregate, Research Report No. 10 8 2F, Austin, Texas. Consolidating Concrete Treated Mixtures of Milled Bitumino pp. 411 417. Modulus of Elasticity of Cement Bound Mixes of Milled Bituminous Concrete and Crushed Aggreg 551. U.S., Air Force, HQ Air Force Civil Engineering, Support Agency, Tyndall AFB, Florida, USA. Li, G., Zhao, Y., Pang, S.S. 635 641. l RILEM Conference on the Use of Recycled Materials in Buildings and Structures, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 10.

PAGE 225

225 ad Materials and Pavement Design, Vol. 10(1), pp. 63 82. 47 58. Patankar, V.D. and Williams, and Traffic Engineering, Vol. 38(1721), pp. 32 35. Mixes for Implementing the AASHTO Recommended Mechanistic Empirical Rig id 543 14, Tallahassee, Florida, USA. Report No. RDT 05 001, Univers ity of Missouri Rolla, Missouri, USA. Shilstone, J.H., 19 12(6), pp. 33 39 Adding Component in Inc. Dallas, Texas. crete for the Reconstruction of the Concrete Pavement of the Motorway Vienna th International Concrete Roads Symposium, Vienna, Austria, pp. 5. Engineering Expe riment Station, University of Illinois, Urbana. Foundation, Report IPRF 01 6 002 04 1a, pp. 9 2. of Rigid Pavement Design System Phase IV, Research Report No. 4910450424912, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. Tia, 4910450422912, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

PAGE 226

226 Tompkins, D., No. 2098, pp. 75 85. Shrinkage o Vol. 3(2), pp. 91 95. Products, pp. 26. y Mixed Mortars and

PAGE 227

227 BIOGRAPHICAL SHE TCH Nabil Hossiney, the son of Mr. Jalall Hossiney and Mrs. Rezwan Sohaili was born in 1982, India. He graduated with a Bachelor of Engineering from the Department of Civil Engineering at Shivaji University, from India in April 2005. After graduation, he ivil e ngineering in United States. He was granted admission at the University of Florida in the Civil and Coastal En gineering Department egree. In 2007 he received funding from the Civil Engineeri ng Department at University of Florida to conduct research in c oncrete materials. He was awarded Master of Science degree in August 2008. Later the Civil Engineering Department awarded him with graduate fellowship to pursue PhD degree at the University of Florida. He joined the PhD program in August 2008 and finally completed his PhD degree at Unive rsity of Florida in August 2012.