See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249959630

Testing Abrasion Resistance of High-Strength

Concrete

Article in Cement Concrete and Aggregates · June 2001

DOI: 10.1520/CCA10523J

CITATIONS READS

9 76

2 authors:

M. Sonebi Kamal H. Khayat

Queen's University Belfast Missouri University of Science and Technol…
149 PUBLICATIONS 893 CITATIONS 221 PUBLICATIONS 2,580 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Kamal H. Khayat
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 27 July 2016
M. Sonebi1 and K. H. Khayat 2
Testing Abrasion Resistance of High-Strength
Concrete
REFERENCE: Sonebi, M. and Khayat, K. H., “Testing Abra-
sion Resistance of High-Strength Concrete,” Cement, Concrete,
and Aggregates, CCAGDP, Vol. 23, No. 1, June 2001, pp. 34–43.
ABSTRACT: Several high-strength concrete types with compres-
sive strength up to 120 MPa were tested to evaluate the suitabilities
of two test standards to evaluate abrasion resistance of concrete sub-
jected to wearing caused by heavy tire and steel wheel traffic and
heavy trucking and water-borne debris. The selected tests were
ASTM C 779, Procedure C, Test Method for Abrasion Resistance
of Horizontal Concrete Surfaces, and ASTM C 1138, Test Method
for Abrasion Resistance of Concrete (Underwater Method). Be-
cause of the low rate of abrasion damage of high-strength concrete,
the need to prolong the test duration of the mechanical abrasion test
from 20 to 40 min and that of the underwater test from 72 to 96 and
120 h to better differentiate between various levels of abrasion was
evaluated. The study also evaluated the differences in wear damage
resulting from testing the finished, molded, or saw-cut surfaces of
high-strength concrete.
Both ASTM procedures are found to be suitable for testing the
abrasion resistance of high-strength concrete. The recommended
test duration of 20 min and 72 h for the ASTM C 779 and C 1138
tests, respectively, are sufficient to differentiate between the levels
of wear damage of high-strength concrete. Good correlations exist
between the wear damage measured at 72 h and those determined at
48, 96, and 120 h for the underwater test and 10 and 20 min results
for the mechanical abrasion test.
The evaluation of the abrasion resistance of saw-cut surfaces can
yield considerably lower abrasion damage and smaller variations in
within-test results than testing finished or molded surfaces.
KEYWORDS: abrasion resistance, durability, high-strength con-
crete, mass loss, wear damage
High-strength concrete (HSC) with superior resistance to abra-
sion-erosion is sometimes used in the repair of hydraulic structures
damaged by water-borne debris, such as stilling basins and spill-
way aprons. Such concrete is also used in the construction of new
hydraulic facilities, concrete pavement, and overlays. Deteriora-
tion of concrete surfaces is caused by forms of wear due to various
exposures, such as abrasion and cavitation. The principal factors
affecting the abrasion resistance of concrete can be the nature and
dosage of aggregate (Gjørv et al. 1990; Laplante et al. 1991; Liu
1981), the concrete strength (Laplante et al. 1991; Ghafoori and
Surandar 1995; Naik et al. 1995), the mixture proportioning
(Ghafoori and Surandar 1995), the use of supplementary cementi-
tious materials [fly ash (Naik et al. 1995), silica fume (Holland
1
Lecturer, Advanced Concrete and Masonry Centre, Division of Civil
Engineering and Construction, University of Paisley, Paisley PA1 2BE,
Scotland, UK.
2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Université de Sherbrooke,
Sherbrooke, Québec, J1K 2R1, Canada.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed May 27 16:30:08 EDT 2015
Downloaded/printed by www.astm.org
Missouri Univ of Science (Missouri Univ of Science ) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
1993; Holland et al. 1987; Sonebi et al. 1993)], the addition of
fibers (Nanni 1989; Sustersic et al. 1991), the curing conditions
(Ghafoori and Surandar 1995; Khayat 1991), as well as surface fin-
ishing (Ghafoori and Surandar 1995).
Several types of standard abrasion test methods are published by
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and other
standards. Each procedure addresses different types of wear dam-
age, as summarized in Table 1. Among the test standards used to
evaluate abrasion resistance of concrete are ASTM C 779, Proce-
dure C test: Abrasion Resistance of Horizontal Concrete Surfaces,
and ASTM C 1138, Abrasion Resistance of Concrete (Underwater
Method). The former test simulates severe conditions of wearing
action, such as that caused by steel-wheeled trolleys and actual traf-
fic load in pavement applications. The ASTM C 1138 test can sim-
ulate the abrasive action of waterborne particles. These methods
are comparative in nature and do not provide quantitative measure-
ment of the length of service that may be expected from a specific
concrete.
The two selected tests are normally used to evaluate the wear
damage of conventional concrete (Holland 1983). The recom-
mended test durations for evaluationg abrasion damage for the
ASTM C 779 and C 1138 tests are 20 min and 72 h, respectively.
Such values are intended mainly for conventional concrete. With
the increasing use of HSC, it is necessary to evaluate the suitabili-
ties of these test procedures and test durations for HSC.
Compressive strength has been shown to be among the most im-
portant factors governing the abrasion resistance of concrete. Gjørv
et al. (1990) developed a testing machine to evaluate the wear
resistance of concrete pavements subjected to circulating traffic ac-
tion. In these experiments, four truck wheels with studded tires run-
ning at speeds of up to 70 km/h circulate over 12 massive concrete
elements, each measuring 1.5 m in length. The authors have evalu-
ated the influence of the nature of coarse aggregate and concrete
moisture on the wear resistance of concrete. High-strength concrete
with a 28-day compressive strength of 150 MPa made with hard
Jasper coarse aggregate or diorite quartz exhibited the greatest re-
sistance to wear damage. The use of concrete with compressive
strength of 150 MPa is stipulated to double the service life of the
pavement compared to concrete made with similar aggregate but a
compressive strength of 50 MPa.
Holland et al. (1987) established a relationship between com-
pressive strength and underwater abrasion resistance at 72 h
(ASTM C 1138, mass loss) of concrete used in the Los Angeles
River basin. The tests showed that the underwater abrasion resis-
tance increases with compressive strength. Holland (1983) also
studied the underwater abrasion resistance of concrete made with
11 to 15% silica fume and W/CM varying between 0.24 and 0.34
for the repair of Kinzua dam in Pennsylvania. Such concretes had
© 2001 by the American Society for Testing and Materials
34

TABLE 1—Classification of concrete abrasion tests by type of wearing action (Alexander 1985).
Heavy Tyre and Steel
Type of Practical Light and Medium Traffic Wheel Traffic; Moving of
Application (Foot and Wheeled)
Concrete floors BöHME
Light to medium ASTM C 418—C 779
applications (Proc. A—Proc. B)
NF P 98-303 (France)
Concrete floors
Heavy applications
Concrete roads BöHME
Normal traffic; ASTM C 779
clean surface (Proc. A—Proc. B)
Concrete roads
Heavy trucking;
abrasion grit on surface
Hydraulic structures
Water at low to
medium velocities +
abrasive medium
Hydraulic structures
Water at very high
velocities
28-day compressive strengths up to 79 MPa. The use of silica fume
improved the abrasion resistance compared to conventional
concrete.
Ghafoori et al. (1995) studied the abrasion resistance of concrete
pavement according to ASTM C 779, Procedure C, and examined
the effect of matrix proportioning on the depth of wear damage.
The water/cement ratio (W/C) of the tested mixtures varied be-
tween 0.21 and 0.34. The mixture proportioning ranged from 9:1 to
3:1 of aggregate to cement ratio, by mass with the cement content
varying from 200 to 594 kg/m3. The compressive strength values at
28 days varied between 40 and 79 MPa. The abrasion resistance of
concrete paving blocks was shown to depend strongly on the ag-
gregate to cement ratio. The change in aggregate to cement ratio
has much greater influence on abrasion resistance than changes in
compressive or splitting tensile strengths of the concrete pavers.
The authors showed good statistical relationship between the depth
of wear damage and the cement content of the matrix as well as
with compressive and splitting tensile strengths. The abrasion re-
sistance of concrete was shown to be far superior under air-dry con-
ditions than under wet conditions. The results showed that the test-
ing conditions (air-dry versus wet) have a much greater impact on
surface resistance than the bulk properties of the equivalent sam-
ple. The top surface of concrete paving blocks is reported to be far
superior to the saw-cut section if air-dry testing is conducted, and
the difference between the two surfaces is reduced under wet con-
ditions (Ghafoori et al. 1995).
Naik et al. (1995) determined the abrasion resistance of Class C
fly ash concrete proportioned to have five levels of cement re-
placements (15, 30, 40, 50, and 70%). The W/CM was maintained
at 0.35  0.02, and the air content was kept at 6  1%. The con-
crete was tested according to ASTM C 944: Abrasion Resistance of
Concrete or Mortar Surfaces by the Rotating-Cutter Method. Depth
of wear values produced by ASTM C 944 were quite low (less than
1 mm after 60 min of testing) for compressive strength levels of 50
MPa at 28 days. The authors developed an accelerated test method
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed May 27 16:30:08 EDT 2015
Downloaded/printed by
Missouri Univ of Science (Missouri Univ of Science ) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
SONEBI AND KHAYAT ON ABRASION RESISTANCE 35
Hydraulic and
Heavy Steel and Track Windblown Effects;
Vehicles-Tyre Chains, Abrasion and Impact
Steel Rocks, etc. Heavy Rocks, etc. Erosion, Cavitation
BöHME BöHME
ASTM C 779 ASTM C 779
(Proc. B—Proc. C) (Proc. C—Proc. B)
ASTM C 418
ASTM C 779 ASTM C 779
(Proc. B) (Proc. B—Proc C)
ASTM C 418
ASTM C 779 (Proc. A)—
ASTM C 418
ASTM C 1138
ASTM C 418
to evaluate the wear resistance of HSC. The method used grinding
wheels with smaller washers, and a standard “Ottawa sand” was
applied to the surface being abraded at intervals of 1 min. Test re-
sults indicated that the abrasion resistance of concrete having up to
30% cement replacement with fly ash was comparable to the refer-
ence concrete at 28-, 91-, and 365 days. The 70% Class C fly ash
mix exhibited the lowest abrasion resistance. The results showed
that compressive strength was an important factor affecting abra-
sion resistance. The air content had no appreciable effect on abra-
sion resistance (Naik et al. 1995).
Nanni (1989) determined the abrasion resistance of roller-com-
pacted concrete (RCC) using both laboratory and field specimens
according to ASTM C 779, Procedure C. Fifty percent of the ce-
ment was replaced by a Class C fly ash in the RCC mix. Three steel
fiber types and one synthetic fiber were used with 1.8, 2.1, and 3%
by weight for the steel fiber and 0.89 kg/m3 for the polypropylene
fiber. The test results showed that: testing under air-dry conditions
produces approximately 30 to 50% less wear damage than under
wet conditions and that the addition of steel or synthetic fiber does
not affect abrasion resistance. The test also indicated that improper
moist curing can severely affect surface quality more so than com-
pressive strength.
This paper evaluates the suitability of using the ASTM C 779,
Procedure C, and ASTM C 1138 test methods to determine the
abrasion resistance of HSC and the need to extend the test durations
to better reflect the level of wear damage of such concrete. The
study also evaluates the influence of test surface (top, bottom, saw-
cut) on the abrasion resistance of HSC.
Materials and Mixture Proportioning
The experimental program presented in this study consisted of
testing 13 HSC mixtures made with different aggregate types and
special materials, such as steel fibers and latex incorporated to en-
hance mechanical performance. The various mixtures were pre-
 36 CEMENT, CONCRETE, AND AGGREGATES

pared with Type 30 and Type 10 cements conforming to Canadian
Standard CSA3-A5-M83: Portland Cements. Such cements are
similar to ASTM C 150 Type III and Type I cements, respectively,
except for the small addition of limestone filler (5%). The poten-
tial compositions and surface fineness of the cements are presented
in Table 2.
A bulk powder silica fume with an SiO2 content of 93% was in-
corporated in all HSC mixtures. The mixtures were made with ei-
ther a granite or a limestone coarse aggregate. The specific gravity
and absorption values of the crushed granite and limestone aggre-
gate were 2.71 and 0.77%, and 2.69 and 1.77%, respectively. The
Los Angeles abrasion weight losses of the granite and limestone
aggregate after 500 revolutions were 17.6 and 15.6%, respectively.
The grain-size distributions of the sand and coarse aggregates are
given in Table 3. The natural river-bed sand with a fineness modu-
lus of 2.47 and specific gravity and absorption values of 2.68 and
1.77%, respectively, was used for all mixtures.
A naphthalene-based high-range water reducer (HRWR) with a
specific gravity of 1.21 and a solid content of 42% conforming to
Canadian Standard CSA3-A266.6-M85, Superplasticizing Admix-
tures for Concrete, was used. A hydroxyl carboxilic acid set re-
tarder conforming with Canadian Standard CSA3.A266.2.M78,
Chemical Admixtures for Concrete, and a synthetic detergent air-
entraining admixture conforming with CSA3-A266.1 specifica-
tions were also used: Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete. A
styrene-butadiene latex with 47% solid content and 1.08 sp gr was
used in some mixtures. Both hooked-type and crimped-type steel
fibers having 50-mm length and aspect ratios of 100 and 50, re-
spectively, were employed.
The mixture proportioning along with the measured initial
slump, unit weight, and air content of the 14 investigated concretes
are summarized in Table 4. The first 13 mixtures present various
concrete types that can be used to enhance abrasion resistance and
had 28-day compressive strength values of 45 to 120 MPa. The ab-
breviations used to identify the mixtures are as follows: C and G are
for mixtures made with limestone and granite coarse aggregate, re-
spectively, 10 and 30 are for mixtures made with Type 10 and Type
30 cements, respectively, L for latex-modified concrete, A for air-
entrained concrete, and F1 and F2 are for mixtures made with
crimped and hooked steel fibers, respectively (Fig. A).

TABLE 2—Cement composition and fineness.

Cement Type 30 Cement Type 10

C3S 58 50
C2S 18 22
C3A 8.3 7.7
C4AF 5.0 8.5
Surface blaine, m2/kg 500 370

TABLE 3—Grading of aggregate (% retained) by sieve size (mm).

10 5 2.5 1.25 0.63 0.31 0.16 0.08

Granite 100 10 1 … … … … …
Limestone 100 16 2 1 … … … …
Fine aggregate 100 99 88 72 52 29 13 4.1 FIG. A

TABLE 4—Mixture proportioning and properties of fresh concrete.

Group A Group B Group C Group D

Limestone Granite Granite + Fiber Conventional
C30/1 C30/2 C10 C10L G30 G30A G10 G30 G30 G30 G30 G30 G30
L/1 L/2 F1 F2 F1L/1 F1L/2

Cement, kg/m3 485 475 480 490 493 463 480 495 498 500 515 455 454 400
Silica fume, kg/m3 53 52 53 54 53 51 52 55 55 53 54 50 50 …
W/(C+SF) 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.29 0.26 0.30 0.45
Coarse Agg., kg/m3 1100 1080 1090 930 1090 1050 1085 940 950 1020 1010 890 890 1040
Sand, kg/m3 760 740 750 650 740 720 745 660 665 710 700 640 620 700
Steel fibers, kg/m3a … … … … … … … … … 59 60 58 58 …
% by volume … … … … … … … … … 0.75 0.76 0.74 0.74 …
Latex, L/m3 … … … 174 … … … 141 142 … … 134 128 …
% mass of cement … … … (15%) … … … (12%) (12%) … … (12%) (12%) …
HRWR, L/m3 28 27 21 5.1 24.6 23.4 20.1 5.1 5.1 26.8 20.1 9.3 8.1 …
Water reducer, L/m3 … … … … … … … … … … … … … 1.0
Set retarder, L/m3 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.51 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.50 0.71 0.72 0.65 0.65 …
AEA, L/m3 … … … … … 0.88 … … … 1.08 … … … 0.14
Slump, mm 180 160 190 240 150 220 190 100 130 30 190 110 80 90
Air content, % 2.4 2.5 2.0 5.0 2.7 8.4 2.5 4.0 4.2 2.6 1.5 2.1 2.1 5.5
Unit weight, kg/m3 2535 2580 2630 2560 2505 2590 2450 2505 2350 2505 2510 2420 2410 2330
a
F1 = Crimped fiber, F2 = Hooked fiber.
NOTE: AEA = Air-entraining agent.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed May 27 16:30:08 EDT 2015
Downloaded/printed by
Missouri Univ of Science (Missouri Univ of Science ) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 SONEBI AND KHAYAT ON ABRASION RESISTANCE 37

The first four mixtures belonging to Group A incorporated
crushed limestone coarse aggregate and had 0.24 W/CM. The first
two mixtures (C30/1 and C30/2) were prepared using a Type 30
portland cement, while Mixtures C10 and C10L used a Type 10 ce-
ment. The latter concrete incorporated latex employed at a concen-
tration of 15% liquid emulsion by mass of cementitious materials.
Five mixtures belonging to Group B were prepared with granite
coarse aggregate and had 0.24 W/CM. Unlike the G30A concrete,
the G30 and G10 mixtures were not air-entrained. The four con-
cretes belonging to Group C incorporated granite coarse aggregate,
Type 30 cement, and steel fibers. The G30F1 mixture used hooked
fibers at 0.75% by volume, and the G30F2 concrete had crimped
fiber at a concentration of 0.31% by volume. The G30F1L concrete
was prepared with two 0.26 and 0.30 W/CM. The last mixture in
Table 4 was an air-entrained conventional concrete without any sil-
ica fume and with 0.45 W/C.
All mixtures were prepared in 100 L batches mixed in a hori-
zontal pan mixer. The batching sequence consisted of mixing the
sand, cement, and silica fume together before adding the mixing
water and HRWR. The coarse aggregate was then introduced, and
the concrete was mixed for 3 min. After 1 min of rest, the concrete
was remixed for 2 additional min. For the fiber-reinforced con-
crete, the fibers were introduced gradually to the fresh concrete.
The air-entraining admixture and retarders were introduced ini-
tially with the mix water. In the case of latex-modified concrete, the
coarse aggregate and sand were first homogenized and mixed with
the latex. The cement, silica fume, water, and HRWR were then in-
troduced, and the concrete was mixed for a total of 5 min.
Test Procedures
The mechanical abrasion resistance of concrete was evaluated
according to ASTM C 779 (Procedure C). The ball-bearing ma-
chine used in this test consists of eight ball bearings subjected to a
load of 120 N rotating at 1000 rpm over a wet concrete surface. The
abrasion damage caused by the sliding action of the steel balls is
quantified by monitoring the depth of wear damage over 20 min us-
ing a dial gage located over the concrete surface.
Slab specimens measuring 95 by 305 by 305 mm were used to
evaluate mechanical abrasion resistance. Each slab was cast in two
lifts and finished using a wooden trowel, and one slab was prepared
for each mixture. The specimens were covered with a plastic plate
for one day before demolding and storage in lime-saturated water
at 20  3°C. The latex-modified mixtures were allowed to water
cure for five days and were then cured in air at 20  1°C and 50%
relative humidity until the age of testing.
After 28 days of age, the abrasion resistance of top-finished sur-
faces was evaluated. The abrasion resistance for 6 of the 14 mix-
tures was also evaluated for the bottom-molded surfaces. At the
completion of the abrasion testing of the top and bottom surfaces,
five concretes were selected to evaluate the abrasion resistance of
saw-cut surfaces. The slabs were sawed with a diamond saw along
their centers to evaluate the wear resistance of the concrete in the
absence of a mortar layer present on top-finished surfaces and at
bottom-molded surfaces.
The standard recommended test duration of 20 min was pro-
longed for 40 min to attain a greater level of damage that may fa-
cilitate the comparison of wear resistance of different types of
HSC. Each specimen was tested at three various locations in com-
pliance with ASTM C 779.
The abrasion-erosion resistance of concrete was evaluated ac-
cording to ASTM C 1138. In this test, the concrete specimen is sub-
jected to an abrasive charge consisting of 70 chrome steel balls cir-
culating in water over the concrete surface. A paddle rotating at
1200 rpm is used to cause the circulation of this abrasive charge.
The mass loss and average depth of the abrasion-erosion are mea-
sured at 12-h intervals for 72 h. The test duration was increased to
120 h in some cases to investigate the need of prolonging the test-
ing time to better differentiate between various levels of wear dam-
age of HSC.
Three cylindrical specimens measuring 202 mm in height and
305 mm in diameter were cast and used to evaluate the underwater
abrasion resistance for each concrete. The specimens were cast in
two lifts and finished with a wooden trowel. The specimens were
demolded after one day and stored in lime-saturated water at 20 
3°C. After 28 days of curing, the abrasion resistance was tested for
the top-finished surfaces. At the conclusion of the test, the abrasion
resistance of the bottom-molded surfaces was evaluated for five
mixtures. Several 100 by 200-mm concrete cylinders were sampled
for compressive strength. They were demolded one day after cast-
ing and cured in lime-saturated water for 28 days.
Test Results and Discussion
Table 5 summarizes the 28-day compressive strengths of the 14
evaluated mixtures along with the results of mechanical abrasion.

TABLE 5—Mean depth of mechanical wear damage, mm. Numbers in parentheses refer to C.O.V. (%).

28-day f c' , Top Surface Bottom Surface Saw-Cut-Surface

Mix MPa 10 min 20 min 40 min 10 min 20 min 40 min 10 min 20 min 40 min

C30/1 112.0 0.45 (13.3) 0.50 (3.2) 0.57 (2.6) … … … … … …

C10 95.6 0.56 (3.6) 0.60 (18.3) 0.80 (12.5) … … … … … …
C10L 57.6 0.76 (1.3) 0.97 (8.2) 1.26 (6.3) 1.03 (4.8) 1.23 (2.5) 1.53 (5.2) … … …
G10 90.0 0.58 (12.0) 0.64 (7.8) 0.72 (1.4) … … … … … …
G30L/1 73.6 0.64 (15.6) 0.76 (9.2) 0.90 (10.0) … … … … … …
G30A 98.1 0.59 (16.9) 0.67 (14.9) 0.75 (14.6) … … … … … …
G30F1 117.3 0.46 (13.0) 0.52 (11.5) 0.57 (1.8) … … … … … …
G30FlL/1 44.3 0.67 (19.0) 0.81 (14.8) 0.97 (18.5) … … … … … …
G30F1L/2 67.6 1.02 (26.0) 1.19 (31.0) 1.47 (25.8) … … … … … …
C30/2 91.6 0.71 (22.5) 0.84 (20.2) 0.91 (23.0) 0.53 (13.2) 0.83 (8.4) 0.93 (8.6) 0.36 (13.9) 0.69 (5.8) 0.81 (12.3)
G30 91.6 0.45 (31.0) 0.59 (32.0) 0.73 (35.6) 0.66 (19.7) 0.76 (17.1) 0.86 (17.1) 0.21 (9.5) 0.26 (26.0) 0.36 (0.16)
G30F2 83.3 0.61 (27.8) 0.69 (15.9) 0.76 (15.8) 0.64 (21.8) 0.74 (17.6) 0.88 (23.8) 0.18 (11.0) 0.36 (13.9) 0.48 (16.7)
G30L/2 79.8 0.59 (28.8) 0.71 (23.9) 0.86 (29.0) 0.60 (8.3) 0.78 (6.4) 0.93 (4.3) 0.29 (31.0) 0.34 (29.4) 0.44 (25.0)
a a
Conventional 30.8 2.65 (1.5) 2.97 (1.3) … 2.53 (1.6) 2.98 (1.3) … 1.13 (7.0) 1.75 (6.3) 2.71 (1.5)
a
Maximum test limit.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed May 27 16:30:08 EDT 2015
Downloaded/printed by
Missouri Univ of Science (Missouri Univ of Science ) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 38 CEMENT, CONCRETE, AND AGGREGATES

TABLE 6—Mean underwater abrasion-erosion, numbers in parentheses refer to C.O.V. (%).

48 h 72 h 96 h 120 h

Mix Depth of Depth of Mass Loss, Depth of Depth of

Mass Loss, Damage, Mass Loss, Damage, % Damage, Mass Loss, Damage,
Surface % mm % mm mm mm % mm

Top
C30/1 0.8 (12.5) 0.8 (25.0) 1.07 (9.3) 1.05 (9.3) 1.34 (16.1) 1.36 (6.7) … …
C10 1.21 (4.9) 1.29 (0.8) 1.62 (4.3) 1.71 (3.5) 2.15 (3.7) 2.30 (1.7) … …
C10L 0.55 (18.1) 0.53 (5.6) 0.93 (10.7) 0.87 (16.0) 1.33 (10.5) 1.37 (8.7) … …
G10 0.63 (25.3) 0.77 (11.7) 0.93 (15.0) 1.08 (6.5) … … … …
G30L/1 0.58 (17.2) 0.65 (15.3) 0.90 (11.1) 1.01 (6.9) 1.25 (8.0) 1.29 (14.4) … …
G30A 0.73 (12.3) 0.71 (8.4) 1.02 (8.8) 1.14 (7.0) … … … …
G30F1 1.02 (11.7) 1.06 (9.4) 1.38 (8.7) 1.38 (8.7) 1.72 (5.2) 1.75 (5.1) … …
G30F1L/2 0.53 (3.8) 0.56 (3.6) 0.88 (3.4) 0.98 (2.0) 1.25 (2.4) 1.38 (1.4) … …
C30/2 1.23 (17.9) 1.12 (3.6) 1.93 (10.9) 1.55 (14.8) 2.75 (6.2) 2.64 (10.6) 3.45 (3.2) 3.33 (5.1)
G30 0.69 (14.5) 0.74 (10.8) 1.01 (11.8) 0.97 (10.3) 1.39 (6.5) 1.39 (6.5) 1.73 (8.1) 2.02 (5.9)
G30F2 1.06 (12.2) 1.41 (9.2) 1.62 (6.8) 1.87 (6.4) 2.22 (4.0) 2.52 (3.6) 2.79 (3.6) 3.07 (2.9)
G30L/2 1.18 (5.0) 1.22 (5.7) 1.73 (3.5) 1.65 (3.6) 2.40 (3.3) 2.35 (4.7) 3.14 (2.5) 3.09 (2.6)
Conventional 9.83 (5.0) 9.83 (6.6) 11.88 (0.5) 12.05 (0.4) 13.06 (0.6) 13.07 (0.7) 13.85 (0.6) 14.15 (0.5)
Bottom
C30/2 1.48 (4.7) 1.55 (10.3) 2.10 (1.9) 2.05 (2.4) 2.8 (1.8) 2.77 (1.1) 3.59 (0.5) 3.69 (0.5)
G30 0.79 (8.9) 1.04 (7.7) 1.08 (7.4) 1.22 (2.5) 1.39 (4.3) 1.54 (1.3) 1.69 (2.3) 1.87 (1.6)
G30F2 1.37 (19.7) 1.33 (12.0) 1.77 (7.3) 1.58 (7.6) 2.13 (5.1) 1.96 (5.6) 2.56 (3.1) 2.40 (3.3)
G30L/2 0.92 (9.8) 0.96 (12.5) 1.41 (5.7) 1.55 (5.1) 1.93 (3.1) 2.07 (2.9) 2.53 (1.6) 2.61 (1.9)
Conventional 8.02 (3.9) 8.06 (0.6) 11.50 (0.1) 11.53 (0.1) 12.88 (0.1) 12.83 (0.1) 13.88 (0.1) 13.83 (0.1)

The reported strength and depth of wear damage results are mean
values of three tests.
Table 6 summarizes the results of underwater abrasion tests for
the 14 tested mixtures. The values in parentheses represent the co-
efficient of variation (C.O.V.) values for the three test results. For
the majority of the tested concrete the abrasion erosion values were
monitored for 120 h as abrasion damage increased with time. A t-
student statistical test was used to evaluate the influence of various
parameters on abrasion resistance, including the influence of the
nature of the tested surface and the test duration. The significant ef-
fect of the various parameters on abrasion erosion is considered at
95% confidence limit.
Effect of Test Duration on Underwater Abrasion Resistance
Table 7 presents the results of the statistical analysis regarding
the effect of test duration on underwater abrasion resistance of
HSC. The effect of test duration of 48, 72, 96, and 120 h on the ex-
tent of mass loss and depth of wear damage obtained from testing
top-finished and bottom-molded surfaces are evaluated. The n val-
ues in parentheses refer to the number of test specimens used in the
t-student test analysis. A “YES” value between the given X test du-
ration and the predicted Y test duration signifies that there is 95%
probability that there exists a significant relationship between the
wear damage evaluated at test durations X and Y.
Regardless of the tested surface and method of quantifying abra-
sion damage (mass loss or depth of wear damage), there are signif-
icant relationships between abrasion resistance at the various tested
durations of 48 versus 72 h, and 48 versus 96 h, etc. Similarly ex-
cellent correlations exist between the wear damage tested at the
recommended 72 h test period and those determined at 48, 96, and
120 h.
Difference Between Underwater Mass Loss and Depth of
Abrasion
The statistical analysis of mass loss data measured in percent and
the depth of wear damage of the underwater abrasion test deter-
mined on upper and bottom surfaces are summarized in Table 8
along with the derived correlations. The abrasion loss can be ex-
pressed as a percentage of the original mass of the specimen or cal-
culated as the volume loss (the average depth of wear). Using a
95% confidence limit, the most suitable regression equations were
found to be of linear form.
Effect of the Nature of Tested Surface
The mechanical wear damage of five mixtures after 20 min of
testing are compared in Fig. 1. Significantly lower abrasion dam-
age was obtained when testing the abrasion resistance of saw-cut
surfaces where the concentration of coarse aggregate is greater than
that at the top-finished and the bottom-molded surfaces. On the
other hand, insignificant differences were obtained between the
abrasion resistance of top and bottom surfaces. This behavior can
be explained by the fact that the abrasion resistance of the top and
bottom surfaces is mostly affected by the hardness and quality of
the paste and fine aggregate, whereas the resistance of the saw-cut
surface is mostly controlled by the quality of the exposed coarse
aggregate. During consolidation and vibration of the samples, fine
particles migrate to the top and bottom of the mold. As a result, the
top and bottom surfaces are denser and more binder-rich than the
saw-cut surfaces.
Effect of Nature of Coarse Aggregate
Test results regarding the effect of the nature of coarse aggregate
(limestone and granite) on the mechanical abrasion results when
tested at 10, 20, and 40 min are presented in Fig. 2. This figure
shows the depth of abrasion damage for all top-finished, bottom-
molded, and saw-cut surfaces. The comparison is done between
Mix G30 and Mix C30/2 having a 28-day compressive strength of
92 MPa. As can be seen, the abrasion resistance improved with the
use of granite coarse aggregate. For example, the average wear
depth at 20 min of the top and saw-cut surfaces of the G30 concrete

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed May 27 16:30:08 EDT 2015
Downloaded/printed by
Missouri Univ of Science (Missouri Univ of Science ) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 SONEBI AND KHAYAT ON ABRASION RESISTANCE 39

TABLE 7—Relationship between mass loss and depth of abrasion (ASTM C 1138).

TABLE 8—Relationship between depth of underwater abrasion (mm) and mass loss (%) (ASTM C 1138).

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed May 27 16:30:08 EDT 2015
Downloaded/printed by
Missouri Univ of Science (Missouri Univ of Science ) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
40 CEMENT, CONCRETE, AND AGGREGATES

FIG. 1—Depth of mechanical abrasion damage of top, bottom, and saw-cut surfaces determined after 20 min of testing.

FIG. 2—Depth of mechanical abrasion for all surfaces (concrete made with limestone and granite coarse aggregates).

TABLE 9—Relationship between underwater abrasion resistance of top and bottom surfaces.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed May 27 16:30:08 EDT 2015
Downloaded/printed by
Missouri Univ of Science (Missouri Univ of Science ) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

was 0.59 and 0.26 mm, respectively, compared to 0.84 and 0.69
mm of the C30/2 concrete. The concrete made with the granite ag-
gregate exhibited higher abrasion resistance compared to the other
one made with limestone aggregate because of the greater hardness
of the granite aggregate.
FIG. 3—Mass loss for top and bottom surfaces: for hydraulic abrasion
Mix C30/2.
FIG. 4—Typical variation between depth of hydraulic abrasion dam-
ages of determined on HSC top and bottom surfaces (C30/2 mixture).
TABLE 10—Relationship between depth of damage caused by mechanical abrasion and 28-d compressive strength.
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed May 27 16:30:08 EDT 2015
Downloaded/printed by
Missouri Univ of Science (Missouri Univ of Science ) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
SONEBI AND KHAYAT ON ABRASION RESISTANCE 41
Difference between Underwater Abrasion Resistance of Top- and
Bottom-Tested Surfaces
Table 9 compares the mass loss and depth of wear damage of
top- and bottom-tested surfaces. There are significant differences
in evaluating the abrasion resistance of top-finished surfaces com-
pared to bottom-molded surfaces. Excellent correlations were ob-
tained between test results determined by testing top and bottom
surfaces. Figures 3 and 4 show the mass loss and depth of under-
water wear damage of top- and bottom-tested surfaces of the C30/2
concrete that had a compressive strength of 92 MPa. The top sur-
face exhibited slightly better performance than the bottom surface
for the underwater abrasion test. For example, the average under-
water abrasion damage at 72 h of the top surface of Mix C30/2 was
found to be better than that of the bottom surface (8 and 24% aver-
age difference for mass loss and depth of damage, respectively).
Correlations between Depth of Wear Damage and Compressive
Strength
Table 10 presents the relationship between the depth of damage
caused by mechanical abrasion of HSC tested at 20 and 40 min and
the 28-day compressive strength. The mixtures included in this
comparison had 28-day compressive strength values greater than
40 MPa. The relationships are derived for abrasion resistance val-
ues determined on top, bottom, and saw-cut surfaces. The results
clearly show that there is a significant effect of the 28-day com-
pressive strength on the mechanical abrasion resistance regardless
of the type of tested surface. Good correlations exist between the
compressive strength at 28 days and the mechanical abrasion resis-
tance of HSC.
Table 11 presents similar results as in Table 10, except for con-
cretes made with granite coarse aggregate to avoid the effect of ag-
gregate on compressive strength and abrasion resistance. The wear
damage results in Table 11 are those for top surfaces. Better corre-
lation coefficients exist between the 28-day compressive strength
and wear damage of mechanical abrasion at 20 and 40 min. The cor-
relation coefficient between the depth of wear damage determined
at 20 min and the compressive strength for all 13 mixtures made
with granite and limestone coarse aggregate were 0.74 compared to
42 CEMENT, CONCRETE, AND AGGREGATES
TABLE 11—Relationship between depth of abrasion damage and 28-d compressive strength of concrete mixtures made with granite aggregate.
FIG. 5—Relationship between 28-day compressive strength and depth of wear of top surface at 20 and 40 min (concrete made with granite coarse ag-
gregate).
0.79 for the eight mixtures made with granite coarse aggregate (Fig.
5). The conventional 30-MPa concrete exhibited lower abrasion re-
sistance in both test procedures. The depth of wear of the conven-
tional concrete of the top tested surface at 40 min was approximately
3 mm compared to 0.6 mm for the G30 concrete.
Conclusions
An experimental program was undertaken to examine the effect
of the nature of the test surface and testing duration on mechanical
and underwater abrasion resistance of HSC. Based on the above re-
sults, the following conclusions can be made:
1. Both ASTM C 779, Procedure C, and ASTM C 1138 tests are
suitable for evaluating the abrasion resistance of HSC mixtures
with a 28-day compressive strength of 80 to 120 MPa.
2. Compared to a 30-MPa concrete, the abrasion resistance of
tested HSC was six to ten times lower after 72 h of testing accord-
ing to ASTM C 1138 and 20 min of testing in compliance with
ASTM C 779. The incorporation of latex and steel fiber did not im-
prove significantly the mechanical and hydraulic abrasion resis-
tance of such HSC.
3. Good correlations exist between the depth of wear damage of
the top surface tested according to ASTM C 1138 at 72 h and those
obtained after 48, 96, and 120 h of testing (R2 of 0.96, 0.88, and
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed May 27 16:30:08 EDT 2015
Downloaded/printed by
Missouri Univ of Science (Missouri Univ of Science ) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
0.99, respectively). The standard test duration of 72 h can even be
reduced to 48 h without affecting the accuracy of comparative re-
sults for HSC.
4. Good correlations exist between the wear damage measured
according to ASTM C 779 at 10 and 20 min (R2 of 0.99). Similarly,
good correlations exist between the mechanical abrasion resistance
at 20 and 40 min and compressive strength at 28 days (R2 of 1 and
0.99 for the bottom surface, respectively).
References
Alexander, M. G., July–August 1985, “Towards Standard Tests for
Abrasion Resistance of Concrete,” Materials and Struc-
tures, Vol. 18, No. 106, pp. 297–306.
Ghafoori, N. and Surandar, B. M., January 1995, “Abrasion Resis-
tance of Concrete Block Pavers,” ACI Materials Journal,
Vol. 92, No. 1, pp. 25–36.
Gjørv, O. E., Torge, H. R., and Ronnig, R. B., January 1990,
“Abrasion Resistance of High-Strength Concrete Pave-
ments,” ACI Concrete International: Design and Construc-
tion, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 45–48.
Holland, T. C., 1983, “Abrasion-Erosion Evaluation of Concrete
Mixtures for Stilling Basin Repairs,” Kinzua Dam, Penn-
sylvania. Final Report SL-83-16, U.S. Army Engineer Wa-
terways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

Holland, T. C. and Gutschow, R. A., March 1987, “Erosion Resis-
tance with Silica-Fume Concrete,” ACI Concrete Interna-
tional: Design and Construction, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 32–40.
Khayat, K. H., 1991, “Underwater Repair of Concrete Damaged by
Abrasion-Erosion,” Final Report, Repair, Evaluation,
Maintenance, and Rehabilitation Research Program, Tech-
nical Report REMR-CS-37, U.S. Army Engineer Corps of
Engineers.
Laplante, P., Aïtcin, P.-C., and Véniza, D., February 1991, “Abra-
sion Resistance of Concrete,” Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 19–30.
Liu, T. C., September–October 1981, “Abrasion Resistance of Con-
crete,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 78, No. 5, pp. 341–350.
Naik, T. R., Singh, S. S., and Hossaim, M. M., November 1995,
“Abrasion Resistance of High-Strength Concrete Made
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Wed May 27 16:30:08 EDT 2015
Downloaded/printed by
Missouri Univ of Science (Missouri Univ of Science ) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
SONEBI AND KHAYAT ON ABRASION RESISTANCE 43
with Class C Fly Ash,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 92, No.
6, pp. 649–659.
Nanni, A., November 1989, “Abrasion Resistance of Roller Com-
pacted Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 86, No. 6,
pp. 559–565.
Sonebi, M. and Khayat, K. H., August 1993, “High-Perfor-
mance Concrete for Fabrication of Panels for Repara-
tion of Submerged Structures,” Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 650–659 (in
French).
Sustersic, J., Male, E., and Urbancic, S., August 1991, “Erosion-
Abrasion Resistance of Steel-Fibre Reinforced Concrete,”
Second CANMET/ACI, International Conference on Dura-
bility of Concrete, SP-126, V. M. Malhotra, Ed., Montreal,
pp. 729–743.