Hydraulic-fracture test apparatus and procedure for determining aggregate durability: study proposal for research project 225-1

48 Pages·1994·2 MB·English

by  New York State Department of Transportation. Engineering Research and Development Bureau

Hydraulic-Fracture Test
Apparatus and Procedure
For Determining Aggregate Durability
STUDY PROPOSAL FOR RESEARCH PROJECT 225-1
APRIL 1994
— ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BUREAU
—— NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mario M. Cuomo, Governor/John C. Egan, Commissioner

A. Identification
Study Title: HYDRAULIC-FRACTURE TEST APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING
AGGREGATE DURABILITY
Research Project 225-1
Agency: Engineering Research and Development Bureau
New York State Department of Transportation
State Campus, Albany, New York 12232
Principal Dan E. McAuliffe
Investigator: Civil Engineer I
Research Wei-Shih Yang
Supervisor: Engineering Research Specialist II
B. Problem Statement
Current aggregate durability tests (magnesium-sulfate and freeze-thaw) are labor-
and time-intensive. A simpler, faster, more accurate test is desirable. As a
"product" of the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), a hydraulic-fracture
apparatus and test procedure were developed by the University of Washington (see
Appendix). This procedure -- SHRP Product 2002 -- subjects coarse aggregate
samples to 8 MPa of water pressure, and then quickly releases the pressure,
creating significant internal forces within the aggregate’s pore structure. Its
resistance to fracture under these conditions should be an indicator of its
freeze-thaw resistance. Unfortunately, equipment for this new test was designed
with 16 threaded rods and nuts to secure the cover to the vessel containing the
aggregate sample, and the cover must be removed several times during the test to
observe the sample. This makes the test apparatus cumbersome and the procedure
labor-intensive. The New York State Department of Transportation is proposing
a simplified test chamber and an automated test procedure. In addition to the
problems with the SHRP test chamber and procedure, analysis of test results to
determine aggregate durability is also in question. Upon revision of the test
apparatus and procedure, it will be necessary to relate the hydraulic-fracture
test to the magnesium-sulfate and freeze-thaw tests, and to actual aggregate
performance.
NYSDOT —
Library
50 Wolf Road, POD 34
Albany, New York 12232
i 4 5 os 7
e = od tw ue a
Cs 2 | , 4 ‘ : | -
} hy ~‘ ¥ ; : “4 * " . i . i "i } sm e tn? |W yaw Dyp Qs. -
, £i “ , ‘ by a- r 4 y&r) (' Axe tm . ac 4
r
. ey
+ 4 \ ‘ 5 * ia vey +: » * z : ' 4 .a eF i naM eoeeC o ep“ atatiie
2 Thi fi “oe a ; ;A n?
, My . ’
Mi 1 oe'Y B, OYE eles 7 S ‘ ee Sebi We ee, ; “f
* . 4 | _ ‘ i lah ° et Be, ah te wni , (a e a
. J vy! : . ; 7 : in ee fs
ee ee ee:
. ne
dad
4
Abid ; AMO) Y.S y,
j re i
. I ‘
va ' i
i Ve : ry Lhd i hk
i v
cleny ik nt iY ia } my 3
SS jav e ute eR > Reh2 4)ai e p CaEe » ¥l y AtF.e; * A aapyt
¢ ints asl We ra) ;
‘> © te ie, a oe 9 ere
. f 4 ail Ns tage?S atin * rat
F pet j 5e se Poy ae are yk ee wort apn
” ; 4 % ae tN a:”: i a a . ’ aea noee Ca_ i ‘ Ae!f ?F h e uss2
; {
>
, , 4 ie— =F c5 e. e= oe“
Ais)4, Dabet i ‘ ; hwi! 9y j okan o fee ‘ dFLp le i , aiv ei eyo e 4,hv i ra h ‘eeoa u _ s
7 gauges eG. Emile d ehh ade Pet n
s “~ ak ol ‘ B28, oe 2 ps Ment ; Pp |;
ae Rs Aan:
Hydraulic Fracture 2
C. Objectives
The study has four primary objectives:
1. Develop a simplified test chamber. The SHRP device is cumbersome, and will
be difficult to assemble/disassemble as required for the test.
2. Develop an automated test procedure, to reduce the time required to perform
the SHRP test.
3. Interpret results from the new test procedure and apparatus.
4. Determine any relationships between the hydraulic-fracture test and a) the
magnesium-sulfate test, b) the freeze-thaw test, and c) actual aggregate
performance. The expected speed of this procedure and a direct correlation
of its results with the older procedures would be a major improvement.
D. Background
The Department’s specifications for coarse aggregates require that they be tested
core;durapil lity: Currently, the Department uses the magnesium-sulfate and
freeze-thaw tests, but they have several drawbacks — they are time-consuming,
results are hard to repeat, variation among labs is significant, and procedures
must be followed strictly.
E. Benefits
The freeze-thaw and magnesium-sulfate tests require up to six weeks to complete,
making approval of coarse-aggregate sources slow and costly. Both tests are also
extremely susceptible to procedural error. Finally, test repeatability and
reliability are such that they should all be performed by the same lab. The
proposed hydraulic-fracture test would be quick — a day or two — allowing fast
determination of aggregate durability and testing of more sources, reducing labor
costs associated with determining aggregate durability, virtually eliminating
procedural errors, and increasing the repeatability and reliability of aggregate
durability tests, thus allowing private labs with the necessary equipment to
perform the work.
F. Implementation
Once the prototype test apparatus and procedure are ready, a cost-benefit analysis
will be performed to determine if use of this test would be cost-effective. If
so, the research results will be ready for use when the project is completed. The
Materials Bureau will assist in finalizing the proposed hydraulic-fracture test
procedure, and issuing the necessary engineering bulletins to allow use of the new
procedure. Additionally, plans and specifications for the hydraulic-fracture test
apparatus will be submitted as part of the test procedure. Cost of implementation
will consist of the equipment and training costs for each region. It is estimated
— a
; or |, 2) od
ree ae
ee £
£
pee oy ea#
; A ans (ty ver on m
i‘ Me a1 hos 16 Saw ? a 2e rn) cee oat —— Five «! nh ertayp ep tt,
‘ie! oat Se Meeeery al ake ve aaa eas
2 eo af a : wy a, 7 _
eri" toy 2S bes lunes er sis aves i alte de sale iis
7 al ha B. a
Wy tt seb ‘
. weitstsegs nek esebesene ae oie. ee,a . we7 e
ts (h boc van ene perd~at Evtiga opt pain & nf j
cinaetyge Ini (o> Ce eet ust esate witha’, Ti
iafca ToeTkt.e . bee peeing Bi; ge Fe tay : bs
rey iets ak ~ bin s 6 bi td «0 SS oo T2aly) «
> , ar Bi
MS “ * .; a <p
| i oe ne < :
ee a es =i
Locint, sof Vas Jet as inte) Seeger eae epee Ss biegen chav oi
ae" tat Lent Spee Or, tea ale head » ore 4 Tae TOR
‘ 2 ’ “ar cs : r ° * - of
me: és. an yadh — alog werk “Ostet wred ce y
vameshoig: a \eaelT Dials 22 atte viet +e idan ei. de Able ae
beets
See igts Deash o? e * eTk iaS ou ?
; a 2 |o t Oe ;h e ; 1
| Hef meen i i -
‘0 ah —" ’ \ :
ijehoune a7 miner xia of to saepeg danas ns
asls @e& begay coos 6 yisees bas ae dalla
sow YL LROksesgqat Jeed, 0, eee ee,
x it aa ape he Pra be ve beinI eee! (ey ok r
tard eauedle + ews vo yet ee Bakep od! Shan
BoLdy ivns nSaete aa e ts C\,h i4g artEeLeS ODevGal bao gulttedS eRo)G P SI aE RRE
, (LUMAR ZR Ser Ege 24 Ratu Fey : cf a.
aT ge ee Fed, fi‘ie DBF ha 4a ane was : > ’
Pe su — eter lag, 28. ri
: a - P > tia ‘i ‘eo = .
A! Af ri. Nae 5
sah 2A aa"i es : idir py - ie ‘ aes SM oo erren TE oe aR +
hit er veces a sgt Set 2 | |
o> seweaet: Batrea: y bat a: migos ? Saikge ejxks cnaclkf, s ae Raab . ES
els este Fa his HS CO MGA ba ; ye 1 Me
7 act y oe 7 “ '
tated
baw
Oe ttn a
ae ie | ae ppt eed:
fig , ’
ey st
7) ae
; f .
Hydraulic Fracture 3
Figure 1. Work-time schedule.
Percent of |1994 1995 1996
Effort JIAIS|FIM|/AIMOIJ I| |ANIS/O||INIDD|J ||F|JM|AI M|J
1, Perform Literature Search ae ___ eee
2. Consult Materials Bureau 8 |) | or ae
3. Design and Build Prototype ae ai ae
Enose iee e
4. Develop Testing Plan and Perform
T5e stAsa lae Te Re wees _soe
6. Write Final Report Pos | TT tT tT tT TT TTT TT ETT TT | rrr
100
apparatus will cost $69,000. Training will include two technicians in the Main
Office being instructed for one or two days in operation of the test apparatus at
an approximate cost of $120 each.
G. Work Plan
The work proposed will proceed approximately as shown in Figure 1. A study period
of two years is proposed, with tasks to accomplish the following objectives:
1. Perform Literature Search
The literature will be searched to identify available resources and provide
background material for coarse aggregate durability testing.
2. Consult with Materials Bureau
The Materials Bureau will provide the geology expertise required to analyze
preliminary testing results and determine their validity. They will also
provide guidance as to whether the "new" test may be used for screening
and/or replace either or both the magnesium-sulfate and the freeze-thaw
tests.
3. Design and Build Prototype Testing Chamber
A test chamber is needed that can be quickly assembled and disassembled,
and used in an automated test procedure. Figure 2 shows the proposed test
chamber design, and Figure 3 the automated test apparatus and procedure.
4. Develop Testing Plan and Perform Preliminary Tests
A modified procedure will be developed to test various coarse aggregates
and determine any correlations between the hydraulic-fracture test and the
two older tests. In addition, the plan will search for any correlations
between the new test and actual coarse aggregate performance. First, two
coarse aggregates of the same rock type, one having excellent durability
and the other poor durability, will be tested using the modified test
procedure. The statistician will be consulted to determine the number of
tests necessary to achieve various levels of reliability based on the
results of the preliminary tests.
: vaaa . oe wy oarabsy ‘>w e'
= ie 5. aay ein oe
A a tre 2
8 ‘ rao
: ;
cae |
3
oa ee
moe ee ee LY
i A Pe.
tod eta
2Srs |
dovy frd igemr
, i}
darian
: SL
gE oe, MOVRe ie: }» ‘ 4 ‘
~ oa eatios tiie we he dest rab.p i 3
ak ota wh @wries OLAS?
9a4e 6Te G> U4S SEOI WKY: AS Gezr' e ausen mi vad? os Ae ‘see , eaai t j #8
Rec ai Teto ie
at) iio sociale si Pak Lepediaton oe es
bivord kab Seerti pl; aer weir ov tts taaee R R o’ F ptp ite mJipp. isnt e
eaitect ¥ PS tein Salle yrenetons absney
axy lore ne Sea pat Setepcateng (pology: aed ates
ste At Se. vedi totlar sia oc tataia ee
2 HES Los war Fava nel erp, eS “oe” ee
erent meee ont See awa Sith . Leaugee
ke alt ga Da’ le ees
ar‘ aria : Pe a e; ee \adaalveg e d” : eeea n—n t a=k .c earpe sg ere ea, pad bd
290t beloded spl aoe: S apes ‘sictnmen 2 anes oe. | baa.
ve tigfem nea? oat erseeaee seg h i
sciliaahs shesv ne e
wiht tai, ros wus cl
Figure 2. Details of proposed apparatus.
i aa Flange for removing
<i Le end closure
Dual Tracks
Stop Dual Tracks
UPPER PLATE
Top Bottom
Qo Inlet
Pressure
Release
LID DETAILS
ae :
i Toe ee
sale ee ;
fas fs
q i”
447 Yin| Lae ae; ee Aya ©|n h e e!A Teeoy) Mi aa ehoaiPaaes s :y %y9
hae Tie | sae’ eau, Wh) UY airy MG
1) > Pa NO CoAe ees a y POabveey y fa e AO ‘aid
{ > ae ;
; Lt : i a: oT c 2
, i i
: j it ia
ie NRO a tae
al
‘ ry
i o 2 7m™a Ada) a;y an ’
= ne et — -o y
Pg aaa e of Th aanaN wt tii eo ty!
.
Ya ynt s get } r’a cet a<narirent> anil yaiao sane;
m o
oR we ae aie
sa) + aie ae, hii’ a 2) ’ saat diece ot he i ra ri aWuat p
Ses
i Py BS 4 7
\
+i ima
Mt ' :I ‘ a ay
i
sf! : ‘
s)
i Tae nLaiev i a i, Pe.S S ehenlae. a The ’ PEN | nhp oty hligt a
= i rni e ag, a: ap mae :
rie 7 s aes
bo &
1
\ {
‘
ry
| ws i $ Wi; s ry i ye ; 2 7 ‘ve SOF;
jm ag a, e lale Yea.” |l od i s' ee* ¢ ; a7 ne (FA or i oass Wihek i “ , “ :
: ovat ; ee ae } y ; WAL Ne eey e a tfe
r)
4
L i)
whe a)
7
ay -
lors, _
“Te be7