4.7 Article

Performance comparison of laboratory and field produced pervious concrete mixtures

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 25, Issue 8, Pages 3187-3192

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.03.002

Keywords

Pervious concrete; Performance; Evaluation; Laboratory mixes; Field mixes

Funding

  1. Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT)
  2. Portland Cement Association (PCA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Portland cement pervious concrete (PCPC) is an environmentally friendly paving material that has been increasingly used in parking lots as well as low volume and low speed pavements. Although specifications are available for the mix design and construction of pervious concrete, there still remains a need for laboratory tests to ensure the anticipated performance of laboratory designed pervious concrete. In this study, the performance of laboratory and field produced pervious concrete mixtures as well as field cores were evaluated and compared through laboratory performance tests, including air voids, permeability, compressive and split tensile strengths, as well as Cantabro and freeze-thaw durability tests. Two types of coarse aggregate, limestone and granite, with two gradings, No. 8 and No. 89 specified in ASTM C33, were used to produce the mixtures. Latex, air-entraining admixture (AEA), and high range water reducer (HRWR) were also added to improve the overall performance of pervious concrete. The results indicated that the mixtures made with limestone and latex had lower porosity and permeability, as well as higher strength and abrasion resistance than other mixtures. Even for pervious concrete, the addition of AEA could still help to improve the freeze-thaw resistance. The comparison between laboratory and field mixtures showed that a properly designed and laboratory verified pervious concrete mixture could meet the requirements of permeability, strength, and durability performance in the field. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available