ABRASION RESISTANCE O F CONCRETE

By P. Laplante, 1 P.-C. Aitcin, 2 and D . Vezina 3

ABSTRACT: The abrasion resistance of 12 concretes is compared with the ASTM

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 05/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

C779-82 (procedure C) testing method. Four different types of aggregates were

used; their source rocks are completely characterized in terms of compressive strength,
modulus of elasticity, Los Angeles loss, and abrasion resistance. The first series
of air-entrained concretes show that while silica fume can slightly improve concrete
abrasion resistance, coarse aggregate nature is more significant. The second series,
focusing on the effect of water/cementitious ratio (W/C) on abrasion resistance,
reveal that as long as W/C is maintained at about 0.30, the concrete's abrasion
resistance almost equals that of the coarse-aggregate source rock. The third series
demonstrates that abrasion resistance in high-strength concretes with very low W /
C is largely determined by that of the coarse aggregate. It is noted, however, that
when the wet-sieved concrete (mortar) and aggregate are of roughly equal abrasion
resistance, the concrete itself exhibits slightly higher resistance than either of them
alone.

INTRODUCTION

Scant attention has been paid to concrete abrasion resistance, despite the
fact that poor abrasion resistance in highway concrete can accelerate pave-
ment deterioration. Approaches to urban highway tunnels, for example, re-
quire excellent abrasion resistance, since shutdowns for repairs can wreak
havoc. More recently, ice abrasion resistance has become a concern for de-
signers of concrete-based, Arctic offshore drilling platforms (Carino 1983).
It has been well established that a particular concrete's abrasion resistance
depends on its compressive strength as well as coarse aggregate volume and
hardness (Mehta 1981; Ozturan and Kocataskin 1987; Liu 1981). The testing
procedure is also a factor.
The recent technological breakthroughs in concrete technology should have
a bearing on abrasion resistance. For instance, the development of super-
plasticizers has made it possible to produce non-air-entrained concretes with
water/cementitious ratios (W/C) under 0.30, matched to compressive strengths
over 100 MPa. Such concretes are inherently resistant to freeze/thaw cycles
and deicing salts (Gagne et al. 1990). Silica fume as an admixture has been
found to enhance compressive strength while decreasing pore size and per-
meability (Mehta and Gjorv 1982), which should ultimately result in higher
abrasion resistance.
To explore to what extent abrasion resistance can be increased through
new technology, an experimental program was set up to investigate the topic
with variables of silica fume addition, W/C, and coarse aggregate type.
'Res. Asst., Faculty of Appl. Sci., Univ. of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec,
Canada J1K 2R1.
2
FullProf., Faculty of Appl. Sci., Univ. of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Can-
ada.
3
Engr., Laboratoire Central, Ministere des Transports, Gouvernement du Quebec,
2700, rue Einstein, Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada G1R 3W8.
Note. Discussion open until July 1, 1991. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript
for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on June 30, 1989.
This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 1,
February, 1991. ©ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/91/0001-0019/$1.00 + $.15 per page.
Paper No. 25538.

19

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 1991, 3(1): 19-28

 EXPERIMENTAL W O R K

Three series of concretes were tested:

• Series A includes four air-entrained concretes with W/C — 0.48. The two
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 05/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

coarse aggregates used were a "strong" granite gravel and a "soft" lime-
stone. In both mixes, silica fume replaced cement on a volume basis cor-
responding to 7.5% by mass.
• Series B is comprised of four non-air-entrained concretes containing silica
fume and a granite corase. Four W/Cs were used: 0.27, 0.32, 0.36, and
0.41.
• Series C concretes, all non-air-entrained, have W/C = 0.32 and contain
silica fume. Four aggregates were used.

Tables 1,2, and 3 give the composition of these concretes and their com-
pressive strengths and moduli of rupture. Compressive strength was mea-
sured on 150 X 300-mm specimens at seven and 28 days; the modulus of
rupture was measured on 100 X 100 X 400-mm beams. Two sawed faces
of specimens measuring 150 X 300 mm [see Fig. 1(a)] were used for abra-
sion resistance testing.
To evaluate the coarse aggregate's and wet-sieved mortar's contribution
to abrasion resistance, part of the concrete was passed through a 5-mm sieve
and cast in a 150 X 300-mm mold, from which a 85-mm slice was sawed
for abrasion resistance testing on two sawed faces [see Fig. 1(b)]. Three 54
X 108-mm cores were used for compressive testing.
The abrasion resistance was established according to ASTM C779-82, which

TABLE 1. Composition and Characteristics of Series A Concretes (W/C = 0.48)

Without
Silica Fume
A1— A3—
granitic A2— granitic A4—
Materials and properties gravel limestone gravel limestone
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(a) Composition
Water (kg/m 3 ) 170 170 170 170
Cement type 1 (kg/m 3 ) 350 350 330 330
Silica fume (kg/m 3 ) — — 27 27
Coarse aggregate (kg/m 3 ) 1,000 970 1,010 995
Fine aggregate (kg/m 3 ) 785 785 775 785
Superplasticizer (L/m 3 ) — — 1.2 1.2
Slump (mm) 75 80 80 90
Air content (%) 8.0 8.0 6.4 6.4
(b) Compressive Strengths and Moduli of Rupture
f'c, 150 x 300 mm, seven days (MPa) 30.3 28.8 35.8 35.0
f'c, 150 x 300 mm, 28 days (MPa) 32.6 30.2 45.1 46.2
f'c, mortar, 52 x 104 mm, 28 days (MPa) 38.3 35.4 50.4 51.2
/;, 100 x 100 X 400 mm, seven days (MPa) 4.4 4.8 4.7 5.2
/;, 100 x 100 x 400 mm, 28 days (MPa) 5.1 5.1 5.3 6.4

20

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 1991, 3(1): 19-28

 TABLE 2. Composition and Characteristics of Series B Concretes
Granite
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 05/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Materials and properties B1 B2 B3 B4

(D (2) (3) (4) (5)
(a) Composition
W/C 0.27 0.32 0.36 0.41
Water (kg/m 3 ) 135 140 145 150
Cement type III (kg/m 3 ) 505 425 390 350
Silica fume (kg/m 3 ) 40 35 31 28
Coarse aggregate (kg/m 3 ) 1,010 1,000 1,020 1,010
Fine aggregate (kg/m 3 ) 800 860 890 900
Superplasticizer (L/m 3 ) 15.4 9 7.2 5
Slump (mm) 150 185 180 95
Air content (%) 2.3 2.2 1.9 2.1
(b) Compressive Strengths and Moduli of Rupture
f'c, 150 x 300 mm, one day (MPa) 53.8 50.6 46.5 32.7
f'c, 150 x 300 mm seven days (MPa) 69.9 67.5 64.6 53.6
f'c, 150 x 300 mm, 28 days (MPa) 89.2 82.2 74.1 59.3
f'c, mortar, 52 x 104 mm, 28 days (MPa) 92.6 90.5 80.9 68.7
/;, 150 X 300 mm, seven days (MPa) 10.3 8.6 8.0 6.9
/;, 150 x 300 mm, 28 days (MPa) 10.5 9.4 9.1 8.2

TABLE 3. Composition and Characteristics of Series C Concretes (W/c = 0.32)

02—
01— dolomitic 03— 04—
Materials and properties limestone limestone trap rock granite
(D (2) (3) (4) (5)
(a) Composition
Water (kg/m3) 140 140 140 140
Cement type III (kg/m3) 430 430 415 425
Silica fume (kg/m3) 35 35 35 35
Coarse aggregate (kg/m3) 1,010 1,015 990 1,000
Fine aggregate (kg/m3) 850 860 880 860
Superplasticizer (L/m 3 ) 10.6 11 12 9
Slump (mm) 190 190 150* 185
Air content (%) 1.9 1.5 Not measured 2.2
(b) Compressive Strengths and Moduli of Rupture
f'e, 150 x 300 mm, seven days (MPa) 66.0 73.3 68.9 67.5
f'c, 150 x 300 mm, 28 days (MPa) 81.9 77.2 79.0 82.2
f'c, mortar, 52 X 104 mm, 28 days (MPa) 85.9 92.9 94.3 90.5
/;, 100 x 100 x 400 mm, 28 days (MPa) 10.8 11.3 — 9.4
"Poor workability.

21

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 1991, 3(1): 19-28

 o

""7
in
00
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 05/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

\ Abrasion test -
in

300
Abrasion test-^ CD

95-100 Compression

L
54RI0SI

b)

FIG. 1. Surfaces Tested: (a) Concrete; and (b) Mortar

consists of measuring the depth of wear made by five steel balls either ro-
tating at up to 2,000 revolutions or when wear reaches 2.8 mm, whichever
happens first.

ABRASION RESISTANCE OF THREE SOURCE ROCKS

Since this approach was comparative, the abrasion resistance, compressive

strength, modulus of elasticity (loading at 0.40/,!), and Los Angeles values
were measured for three of the four aggregate sources. Results are presented
in Table 4 and Fig. 2. As is evident, there is no direct correlation between
the mechanical values and the depth of wear measured.
The limestone, selected for being well known as a soft aggregate, showed
the lowest compressive strength, but the highest elastic modulus. It also had
the greatest Los Angeles loss and depth of wear. On the other hand, the
granite has nearly double the compressive strength of the other two rocks,
despite exhibiting the lowest modulus of elasticity. Surprisingly, its Los An-
geles loss was above 20%. Well known for its excellent abrasion resistance,
the granite exhibited the lowest depth of wear and, in that respect, ranks as
one of the strongest aggregates in the Montreal, Quebec, Canada, area.
The dolomitic limestone exhibited intermediate properties, except for Los

TABLE 4. Characteristics of Aggregate Source Rocks

Dolomitic
Properties Limestone limestone Granite Trap rock
(D (2) (3) (4) (5)
Compressive strength (MPa) 116 125 262 —
Modulus of elasticity (GPa) 62 59 56 —
Los Angeles (%) 28.7 18.9 21.9 14.6
Depth of wear after 20 min
(mm) 1.74 0.53 0.08 —

22

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 1991, 3(1): 19-28

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 05/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

i i i i i—i i i i—i i i i—r~r

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (minutes)
FIG. 2. Abrasion Resistance of Three Different Rocks

A4 a.
with silica fume

i i r~i i i r~
10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (minutes)

3.2- A2 b.
Al^ A4
-,s- without^V / y A3

-£ 2.4-
& 2,0- (- -^— with silica fume
5
1.6-
* 1.2-
a8
s ~
0,4-

' 1 ' M I M i I i 1 i | 1 | 1 | 1 i
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (minutes)

FIG. 3. Abrasion Resistance of (a) Series A Concretes; and (b) Series A Mortars
23

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 1991, 3(1): 19-28

 0.7
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 05/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

'• u i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i r
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (minutes)

Time (minutes)

FIG. 4. Abrasion Resistance of (a) Series B Concretes; and (b) Series B iVIortars

Angeles loss, which was the highest tested. This aggregate has been proven
very suitable for making high-performance concrete.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Series A: Influence of Silica Fume on Concrete Abrasion Resistance

The compositions of concretes Al, A2, A3, and A4 are presented in Table
1. While all had W/C = 0.48, A3 and A4 were made with silica fume.
Limestone aggregate was used in A2 and A4.
These four concretes were air-entrained with a 75-90-mm slump at the
end of mixing. Superplasticizer was used to adjust the slump of the two
silica-fume concretes.
The two concretes without silica fume had similar compressive strengths,
as did the two silica-fume concretes, indicating that aggregates only slightly
affect compressive strength at the W/C used. In all cases, mortars exhibited
higher compressive strength than the concrete. These findings are inconclu-
24

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 1991, 3(1): 19-28

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 05/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (minutes)

FIG. 5. Influence of Coarse Aggregate Nature on Concrete Abrasion Resistance

sive since the measurements were taken on differently sized specimens.

Modulus of rupture provides similar results but with less significant differ-
ences. Nevertheless, the silica-fume concretes and mortars yielded much higher
compressive strengths than those without. The use of silica fume in both
concrete [Fig. 3(a)] and mortar [Fig. 3(b)] decreases somewhat the depth of
wear. Fig. 3(a), however, demonstrates coarse aggregate's greater influence
on abrasion resistance.
Comparing Figs. 3(a) and 3(b) reveals that the concretes provide higher
abrasion resistance than their respective mortars at the given W/C. Mortar
contamination by the smallest coarse aggregate particles passing through the
5-mm sieve (about 5% according to the coarse-aggregate grain-size analysis)
may account for the differences in mortar abrasion resistance.

Series B: Influence of W/C on Concrete Abrasion Resistance

Concretes Bl, B2, B3, and B4 had W/Cs of 0.27, 0.32, 0.33, and 0.41,
respectively. All were superplasticized non—air-entrained silica-fume con-
cretes. Their slump ranged from 90 mm to 190 mm; air content varied from
1.9% to 2.3% as shown in Table 2.
As expected, lowering W/C resulted in higher compressive strengths and
moduli of rupture in both the concretes and their mortars.
Fig. 4(a) demonstrates clearly the influence of W/C on concrete abrasion
resistance, which decreases as W/C increases. Mortars performed similarly
as shown in Fig. 4(b). The strong granite coarse aggregate accounts for the
significantly lower depth of wear for the concrete.
The results obtained with concrete A3 (made with the same coarse ag-
gregate, but a higher W/C and 6.4% entrained air) show poor abrasion re-
sistance in comparison to B4, its air-entrained counterpart with W/C = 0.41.
The experimental data, however, does not indicate whether the increased W/
C or the increased air content bad the greater impact on abrasion resistance.
25

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 1991, 3(1): 19-28

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 05/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Time (minutes)

FIG. 6. Comparison of the Abrasion Resistance of (a) Limestone; (b) Dolomltic

Limestone; and (c) Granite to Their Respective Mortars and Concretes

Series C: Coarse-Aggregate Influence on Concrete

Abrasion Resistance
In this experiment, a new coarse aggregate was added: a very hard trap
rock. While full characterization was not possible, this rock recorded the
smallest Los Angeles loss of the four aggregates.
All the concretes (composition given in Table 3) were made with W/C =
0.32, were non-air-entrained, and contained silica fume. A naphthalene su-
26

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 1991, 3(1): 19-28

 perplasticizer was used to adjust the slump to 150-190 mm.
As shown in Table 3, W/C, and not the coarse aggregate type, had the
greatest impact on compressive strength. Similar results were recorded for
the mortar, although the spread was somewhat greater.
Fig. 5 illustrates how much aggregate type influences the abrasion resis-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 05/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tance of concretes with the same W/C. The trap rock and granite concretes
exhibited high abrasion resistance, while the soft limestone recorded much
poorer results. The dolomitic limestone exhibited very good abrasion resis-
tance, although not as great as the granite and trap rock.
Figs. 6(a—c) compare the abrasion resistance of the different rocks, mor-
tars, and concretes to determine how each influences the concrete's overall
abrasion resistance.
Fig. 6(a) presents the results for the soft limestone, a soft aggregate
embedded in a hard mortar, resulting, of course, in intermediate abrasion
resistance. During the test, it appeared that mortar abrasion resistance strongly
influences concrete abrasion resistance because the mortar paste represented
a larger portion of the sawed surface where abrasion resistance was mea-
sured. (A cubic meter of concrete comprises about 1,000 kg of coarse ag-
gregate versus 1,500 kg of mortar paste.)
Fig. 6(b) presents the opposite situation: This concrete has a very hard
aggregate embedded in a mortar paste with a much lower abrasion resistance,
yielding intermediate abrasion resistance.
Fig. 6(c) provides somewhat more surprising results. During the first 5
min of the test, the concrete had an abrasion resistance falling between do-
lomite (the hard part of the concrete) and the mortar paste (its softer part).
The rock, mortar, and concrete, however, exhibit quite similar abrasion
characteristics. After 5 min, the concrete's abrasion resistance slightly ex-
ceeded that of the coarse aggregate and mortar. This somewhat unexpected
result might be linked to the similar abrasion characteristics of the mortar
fraction and coarse aggregate, resulting in slightly enhanced performance as
a composite with respect to this specific test. Even wearing, however, can
give the concrete a smoother surface that is more likely to cause skidding
or slipping problems when wet.

CONCLUSION

Comparing the findings for series A, B, and C concretes shows coarse

aggregate to be the most important factor affecting concrete abrasion resis-
tance measured by ASTM C-779-82. The granite and trap rock tested herein
performed exceedingly well.
Water/cementitious ratio ranks second in importance, since abrasion re-
sistance increases as W/C decreases. It has also been shown that silica fume
increases the abrasion resistance of concrete, but to a lesser extent than either
the coarse aggregate or W/C.
The abrasion resistance of concrete is strongly influenced by the relative
abrasion resistance of its constituent coarse aggregate and mortar. In the case
of the dolomitic limestone, which displayed similar constituent abrasion re-
sistances, the composite concrete (mortar paste plus coarse aggregate) ex-
hibited slightly better abrasion resistance than its constituents: Its texture
performed better under the selected abrasion testing method.
It should be noted, however, that when the coarse aggregate and mortar
27

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 1991, 3(1): 19-28

 have nearly the same abrasion resistance, the concrete can present serious
skidding or slipping problems when wet due to fairly uniform surface wear.
Finally, it has been demonstrated that a very low W/C (about 0.30) can
make the concrete nearly as abrasion resistant as high-performance rocks,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 05/28/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

such as trap rock and finely grained granite.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research project was sponsored by the Quebec Transport Department.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES

Carino, N., ed. (1983). Proc. Int. Workshop on the Performance of Offshore Concr.
Struct, in the Arctic Envir., National Bureau of Standards, 67.
Liu, T. C. (1981). "Abrasion resistance of concrete." J. Am. Concr. Inst., 78(5),
341-350.
Mehta, P. K. (1981). Concrete structure, properties and materials. Prentice-Hall
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Gagne, R., Pigeon, M., and Aitcin, P.-C. (1990). "Durability au gel des betons a
haute performance mecanique." Mater, and Struct., 23(134), 103-109 (in French).
Mehta, P. K., and Gjorv, O. E. (1982). "Properties of cement concrete containing
fly ash and condensed silica fume." Cement and Concr. Res., 12, 587-596.
Ozturan, T., and Kocataskin, F. (1987). "Abrasion resistance of concrete as a two-
phase composite material." Int. J. Cement Composites and Lightweight Concr.,
9(3), 169-176.

28

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 1991, 3(1): 19-28