See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323626426

PLASTIC CONCRETE COMPRESSION STRENGTH AND ELASTICITY MODULUS

CHANGES DURING TIME

Article · January 2008

CITATIONS READS

0 719

4 authors, including:

Yousef Ghaffari Vahid Nourani

4 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   
University of Tabriz
271 PUBLICATIONS   6,023 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Extreme Events View project

Investigating effect of different variable in Water demand prediction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yousef Ghaffari on 08 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS

! ""#

Plastic concrete compression strength and elasticity modulus

changes during time

Y.Ghaffari1, M.Valipor2, M.Ghaffari3, V. Nourani4

1
M.S. Student& Consulting eng., Dept. of Civil Engineering, Tabriz University, Iran
youssef_ghaffari@yahoo.com
2
M.S. Student& dam contractor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Tabriz University, Iran
mojtaba_valipoor56@yahoo.com
3
Oil Company Structure designer and M.S. in Structural Engineering., Tehran, Iran
mahmoud.ghaffari@gmail.com
4
Assistant professor of Tabriz University
nourani@tabrizu.ac.ir

Abstract

Principal requirements for plastic concrete used in construction of cut of wall dams.
Therefore it should have special properties such as enough compression strength and
impermeability to resist against hydraulic pressure and seepage respectively. But the
important characteristic of the plastic concrete is its adaptability for the big displacements
that may accrue in soil that surrounded. For this it should have low modulus of elasticity. In
this paper plastic concrete compressive strength and elasticity modulus of Geygag dam that
is located in West Azerbaijan in Iran, are investigated and compared with the data that we
had from Karkhe dams cut off (IRCOLD, 2000). At the end plastic concrete elasticity
modulus and compressive strength treatment by passing time are investigated.

Keywords: seepage, compressive strength, elasticity modulus, impermeability.

Introduction

Seepage control is more important consideration in design and construction of dams and
structural walls. Plastic concrete cut-off walls are one of the effective ways to control the
seepage and are extensively used for this purpose. Important requirements of plastic
concrete for theses application are low permeability; low modulus of elasticity for the
purpose of deformation adaptability of foundation and it is one of good way to avoid the
cracks that may accrue in interface of concrete wall and dam body in earth fill dams.

1
Third one is adequate strength to resist against design loads. In this research uniaxial
compressive strength and modulus of elasticity are measured for more than150 specimens
with 7days age and 150 specimens with 28 days age. All of these specimens were gotten
from Geygag cut-off wall. Furthermore we presented some specimen results from Karkhe
dam cut-off plastic concrete.

2. Experimental detail

2.1. Used material and specimens Material used for four type laboratory specimens mixed
consists of cement, water, bentonite and aggregates. Proportions of used materials are
shown in table 1 and grain size distribution curve are shown in figure (1).

Table (1): Mixing proportions and consistency of fresh concrete mixes

Specimen B+C B/C B C W W/B Aggregate density slump
Kg/m³ Kg/m³ Kg/m³ Kg/m³ Kg/m³ g/cm³ cm
G1 185.6 0.304 43.5 143 363 8.33 1550 2.10 17
G2 212 0.265 44 168 365 8.30 1545 2.12 16
G3 222 0.247 44 178 367 8.38 1541 2.130 16
G4 234 0.232 44 90 372 8.45 1530 2.136 16

Figure (1) Aggregate curve for plastic concrete design (Geygag dam)

2.2. Test procedure

For determination of compressive strength test carried out according to ASTM-C39 on
10×20 specimens at the age of 7 and 28 days. Each result gives the mean value of two
specimens at these ages.
According to ASTM-D2166 about the unconfined test on cohesive soil, axial strain rate of
2.8 mm/min was applied on 20cm height specimens and modulus of elasticity is calculated
for specimens.
This elasticity modulus is not pure and creep is not taken into account. For consideration
the creep effect unloading was not applied but regarding that creep effect could not have
considerable effect on main result it could be concluded the results are reliable.

2
3. Results
3.1. Failure load (qu), modulus of elasticity (E) and failure strain ( f) for laboratory tests
are given in table (2).

Table (2): test results for laboratory specimens

G1 G2 G3 G4
qu Kg/cm² 5.2 12.5 14.7 17.2
E Kg/cm² 1310 1830 1990 2564
f % 0.7 0.91 1.1 0.91

For instance specimen specification, laboratory test result and uniaxial curve for G2 are
shown in table (3) and fig (2) respectively.

Table (3): specimen specification & laboratory test result forG2

G2 , 28 days
Diameter Height
10.1 Area Ao 80.12 20.4
(cm) Lo(cm)
Volume 1634.42 Weigh(gr) 3469.5 Wet Unit 2.123

Deformation dial sample

Concret Total
reading Deform Unit strain Area Stress
Load Dial e Area Load
ation L/Lo CF (Kg/cm²)
Áo sample
DRC 0.01 L(mm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 0 0 0 1 80.12 0 0
22 44 0.22 0.0011 0.999 80.2 166.76 2.08
34 67 0.34 0.0017 0.998 80.25 253.93 3.16
47 88 0.47 0.0023 0.998 80.3 333.52 4.15
59 110 0.59 0.0029 0.997 80.35 416.9 5.19
70 138 0.7 0.0034 0.997 80.39 500.28 6.22
85 153 0.85 0.0042 0.996 80.45 579.87 7.21
98 173 0.98 0.0048 0.995 80.51 655.67 8.14
114 192 1.14 0.0056 0.994 80.57 727.68 9.03
130 211 1.3 0.0064 0.994 80.63 799.69 9.92
149 229 1.49 0.0073 0.993 80.71 867.91 10.75
166 245 1.66 0.0081 0.992 80.78 928.55 11.5
185 266 1.85 0.0091 0.991 80.85 1008.14 12.47
192 221 1.92 0.0094 0.991 80.88 837.59 10.36
192 245 1.92 928.55

3
 Figure (2): Laboratory test result curve for specimens G2

3.2. Dam specimen result

The results from Geygag dam for 7 and 28 days age for compressive strength and are use to
fit a curve. 117 specimens results used for finding the relationship between 7 and 28 days
compressive strength. The equation (1) is defined to Table curve software and the
calculated results for a, b, c and d were as:

3 2
y = ax + bx + cx + d (1)
In which:
a=0.009903198 b=-0.3078764
c=4.1839148 d=-2.4319722
For the resulted formula r²=0.882
The results from Geygag dam for 7 and 28 days age modulus of elasticity are use to fit a
curve . 81 specimens results used for finding the relationship between 7 and 28 days
modulus of elasticity. The equation (2) is defined to Table curve software and the
calculated result for a, b, c and d were as:

3 2
y = ax + bx + cx + d (2)
In which:
a=-1.2806682e-07 b=0.001349366
c=-4.11411534 d=5263.487

For the resulted formula r²=0.79

Fitted curve for the compressive strength and modulus of elasticity are shown in figure (3)
and (4) respectively.

4
 Figure (3): Compressive strength fitted curve

Figure (4): Modulus of elasticity fitted curve

The resulted formula from fitted curve was compared and verified by using karkhe dam
data. Compressive strength results were satisfactory for the cement rang between 120 up to
200 Kg/m³ and the bentonite ranges were between30 to 45. Comparison results for 15
specimens are shown in table (4). But for the modulus of elasticity Karkhe dam's data were
not reliable. Kharkhe data ranges for modulus of elasticity were between 10000 and 50000
Kg/cm² and in comparison with geygag dam results it seems that these data are unreliable.

5
After a lot of investigation we understood that they used ASTM C469 standard for
measurement modulus of elasticity and because of, inelastic treatment of plastic concrete
using this standard would not be correct. The other problem that caused this difference in
modulus was the capping of specimens. In karkhe dam the capping of specimens were done
by using of melted sulfur. According to IRCOLD report about karkhe dam, the specimens
which had capping with cement powder had 50% decreases in modulus of elasticity in
accordance with the specimens that had capping with melted sulfur. Hence for verification
of the formula for modulus of elasticity geygag dam data (the data which are not used in
curve fitting) were used and the results were satisfactory. The error was not exceeded more
than 10%.

Table (4): experimental data and proposed formula result caparison for Karkhe dam
compressive strength.
7 days 28 days compressive
bentonite cement water w/c compressive compressive strength
Aggregate
(Kg/m³) (Kg/m³) (lit) (Kg/m³) strength strength from formula
Kg/m³
Kg/cm² Kg/cm² Kg/cm²
40 150 380 2.53 1500 8 16 15.88
40 180 380 2.1 1500 9 17 16.91
40 200 380 1.9 1500 15 23 23.50
40 150 380 2.53 1600 7 13 14.71
40 180 380 2.1 1600 12 18 19.77
40 200 380 1.9 1600 15 23 23.50
35 150 380 2.5 1600 6 9 13.33
35 200 380 1.9 1600 7 13 14.71
35 180 380 2.1 1600 6 12 13.33
35 200 329 1.64 1500 17 30 27.26
40 150 300 2.33 1500 8 12 15.88
35 120 300 2.75 1500 5 9 11.70
40 150 300 2.33 1500 8 12 15.88
40 150 320 2.33 1500 7 15 14.71
39 120 275 2.3 1500 5 11 11.70

4. Conclusion
1. For the plastic concrete for the cement ranges between 120 to 200 Kg/m³ and bentonite
ranges between 30to 45 Kg/m³ the formula which resulted from Geygag dam data gives
satisfactory result for the relationship between 7 and 28 days age compressive strength
relationship.
2. The resulted formula from Geygag dam data for modulus of elasticity was suitable for
the same dam data.
3. ASTM C469 standard seems are not suitable for measurement elasticity modulus of
plastic concrete.
4. Capping of specimens with sulfur increase the modulus of elasticity therefore using
cement powder seems better than sulfur.

6
 References

1. Mohbobi, A., Ajorloo, A., (2005). “ Experimental study of the mechanical behavior of
plastic concrete in triaxial compression, ”Cement and concrete Journal, 35 412-419
(September).
2. Begheri, A. R., Alibabaie, M., Babaie, M. (2008), “Reduction in the permeability of
plastic concrete for cut-off walls through utilization of silica fume,” Construction and
Building Material Jornal, 22 1247-1252 (April).
3. Karkhe dam papers,(2000), IRCOLD
4. ASTM, (1989). “test method for unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soils,”
Annual book of ASTM Standard, American Society of Testing and materials,
Philadelphia, ASTM D2166.
5. ASTM, 1994. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens,” American Society of Testing and materials, Volume02.04, ASTM-C39
6. ASTM, 1994. “Static modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio of concrete in
compression,” ASTM-C469-94.
7. ASTM, 1989, “Standard Test Method for Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial
Compression Test on Cohesive Soils,” Annual book of ASTM Standard, American
Society of Testing and materials, Philadelphia, ASTM D2850.
8. REMR, Design procedure for concrete cut off walls,” TECHNICAL note GT-sr-
1.3,1992
9. ICOLD, “Filling material for watertight cut off wall,” Paris, 1985, Bulletin NO.51.

View publication stats