Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
ALLOWABLE LIMITS FOR CONDUCTIVITY TEST METHODS AND DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT PREDICTION OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES EXPOSED TO MARINE
ENVIRONMENTS
By
ENRIQUE A. VIVAS
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2007
2
© 2007 Enrique A. Vivas
3
To my loving family, my mother Carmen Yolanda, my father Pedro Alexander and my brother Pedro Luis, as they have offered their unyielding love and support, and last but not least, to
Johanna “Ponchis”
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank the Florida Department of Transportation for providing the funding for this
research project. This project was a collaborative effort among the University of Florida, and the
FDOT State Materials Office Research Laboratory (Gainesville).
I would like to thank my committee chair and advisor, Dr. Trey Hamilton, for his guidance
and support. It was truly an honor to work under his guidance. Special thanks go to Mario
Paredes, FDOT State Materials Corrosion Office, for his supervision and technical support
during the course of the project. I cannot thank him enough for all of his help. Moreover, I would
like to thank the FDOT State Materials Office Research Laboratory personnel for their help on
constructing the specimens and conducting materials testing, especially Charlotte Kasper, Phillip
Armand and Sandra Bober whose help was critical to the completion of this project. The
assistance of Elizabeth (Beth) Tuller, Robert (Mitch) Langley and Richard DeLorenzo is
gratefully acknowledged. My sincere gratitude goes to Dennis Baldi and Luke Mcleod who
assisted in the field investigations of the project. Moreover, the assistance of staff from FDOT
Districts (D2, D3, D4, D5 and D7) for their assistance in the field investigations; especially
Bobby Ivery, Steve Hunt, Wilky Jordan, Ken Gordon, Donald Vanwhervin, Daniel Haldi and
Keith West. I would like to thank CEMEX, BORAL Materials Technologies Inc., W.R. Grace &
Co., Burgess Pigment Co., Lafarge, RINKER Materials Corp., S. Eastern Prestress Concrete Inc.,
Gate Concrete Products and COUCH Concrete for their contributions to this research.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................7
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................10
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................15
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................17
2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................19
Mechanism of Chloride Ion Transport ...................................................................................19 Diffusion of Chloride Ions......................................................................................................20 Test Methods to Predict Permeability of the Concrete...........................................................21
Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration (AASHTO T259) ..........................22 Bulk Diffusion Test (Nordtest NTBUILD 443) ..............................................................24 Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202) .............................25 Surface Resistivity Test Using the Four-Point Wenner Probe (FM 5-578) ....................27
Time Dependent Diffusion in Concrete..................................................................................31 Effective Diffusion Coefficients of Concrete Structures Exposed to Marine
Environments ......................................................................................................................33
3 CONCRETE MIXTURE DESIGNS AND FIELD CORE SAMPLING...............................42
Concrete Mixtures ..................................................................................................................42 Laboratory Concrete Mixtures ........................................................................................42 Field Concrete Mixtures ..................................................................................................43
Field Core Sampling ...............................................................................................................44 Bridge Selection ..............................................................................................................45 Coring Procedures ...........................................................................................................45
4 TEST PROCEDURES............................................................................................................66
Laboratory and Field Concrete Sample Matrix ......................................................................66 Chloride Ion Content Analysis ...............................................................................................66 Diffusion Test .........................................................................................................................66
Bulk Diffusion Test .........................................................................................................66 Electrical Conductivity Tests..................................................................................................67
Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCP) ........................................................................67 Surface Resistivity Test ...................................................................................................69
Bridge Core Sample Chloride Ion Content Analysis..............................................................69
6
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................................................77
Fresh Properties ......................................................................................................................77 Mechanical Properties ............................................................................................................77 Long-Term Chloride Penetration Procedures.........................................................................79 Comparison of Conductivity and Long-Term Diffusion Tests...............................................81
Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCP) ........................................................................81 Surface Resistivity...........................................................................................................82
Relating Electrical Tests and Bulk Diffusion .........................................................................83 Refinement of the Long-Term Diffusion Coefficient Prediction Using Monte Carlo
Simulation ...........................................................................................................................87
6 FIELD CORE SAMPLING..................................................................................................114
Diffusion Coefficients of Cored Samples.............................................................................114 Correlation of Long-Term Field Data to Laboratory Test Procedures .................................115
7 RECOMMENDED APPROACH FOr DETERMINING LIMITS OF CONDUCTIVITY TESTS...................................................................................................................................125
RCP and Bulk Diffusion.......................................................................................................125 SR and Bulk Diffusion..........................................................................................................128
8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................140
APPENDIX
A CONCRETE MIXTURE LABELING SYSTEM CONVERSION .....................................142
B CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS.....................................................................143
C LABORATORY LONG-TERM CHLORIDE PENETRATION TEST (BULK DIFFUSION) DATA AND ANALYSIS RESULTS ...........................................................148
D FIELD CORE SAMPLING DATA AND ANALYSIS RESULTS.....................................177
E SHORT-TERM ELECTRICAL TEST DATA RESULTS ..................................................184
F REGRESSION FIT OF CONDUCTIVITY AND LONG-TERM DIFFUSION TESTS ....193
G COMPARISON OF CONDUCTIVITY AND LONG-TERM LABORATORY DIFFUSION TESTS.............................................................................................................196
H ANALYSIS OF DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHER PROJECTS ....................................206
LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................210
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................216
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table page 2-1 Comparison of RCP Results with Ponding Tests (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202) ........36
2-2 Measured Electrical Resistivities of Typical Aggregates used for Concrete.....................36
2-3 Apparent Surface Resistivity using a Four-point Wenner Probe......................................36
2-4 Several Curve Fitting Constants m that Describes the Rate of Change of the Diffusion Coefficient with Time for Various Concrete Mix Designs ...............................37
3-1 Laboratory Mixtures Material Sources. .............................................................................47
3-2 Laboratory Mixture Designs. .............................................................................................47
3-3 Standard Method for Casting and Vibrating Concrete Cylinders (AASHTO T23)...........48
3-4 Specified Compressive Strength of FDOT Concrete Classes............................................49
3-5 Field Mixture Designs........................................................................................................49
3-6 Field Mixture Material Sources. ........................................................................................50
3-7 Locations of Field Mixtures...............................................................................................51
3-8 FDOT Cored Bridge Structures for the Investigation........................................................52
3-9 FDOT Cored Bridge Element Mixture Designs. ...............................................................53
3-10 FDOT Cored Bridge Element Mixture Material Sources. .................................................54
3-11 28-Day RCP Test Data from Concrete Mixture Designs of the Cored Samples. ..............56
3-12 Summary of Cores Extracted and Associated Properties. .................................................57
4-1 Concrete Permeability Research Sample Matrix for Laboratory Mixtures. ......................71
4-2 Bridge Core Samples Profiling Scheme. ...........................................................................71
5-1 Fresh Concrete Properties. .................................................................................................90
5-2 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients...................................................................................91
5-3 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Surface Concentration. .................................................................92
5-4 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients...................................................................................93
8
5-5 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Surface Concentration. .................................................................94
5-6 Bulk Diffusion Ratio of Change from 3-Years to 1-Year of Exposure. ............................95
5-7 Pozzolans and Corrosion Inhibitor Effects on Bulk Diffusion Coefficients......................95
5-8 Correlation Coefficients (R2) of RCP to Reference Tests. ................................................96
5-9 Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Surface Resistivity to Reference Tests...........................96
5-10 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion Relative to 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs). .........96
5-11 Correlation Coefficients (R2) of RCP and Surface Resistivity to Reference Tests by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis......................................................................................97
5-12 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion Relative to 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs) by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis......................................................................................97
6-1 Calculated Diffusion Parameters of Cored Samples........................................................120
6-2 Time Dependent Changes in Diffusion Coefficients from Submerged and Tidal Zones................................................................................................................................121
6-3 Laboratory Bulk Diffusion Coefficients for Comparable Mixtures with an Expected Low Chloride Permeability Design. ................................................................................121
7-1 Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test for Concrete Elements Under Extremely Aggressive Environments (Very Low Chloride Permeability) and Associated Confidence Levels. ..........................................................................................................131
7-2 28-Day RCP Pass Rates of Several Concrete Samples by FDOT Standard Specifications (FDOT 346 2004).....................................................................................131
7-3 Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test with a 90% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability. ..............................................132
7-4 Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test with a 95% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability. ..............................................132
7-5 Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test with a 99% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability. ..............................................132
7-6 Allowable Surface Resistivity Values for a 28-Day Test for Concrete Elements Under Extremely Aggressive Environments. ..................................................................133
7-7 28-Day Surface Resistivity Pass Rates of Several Concrete Samples by FDOT Standard Specifications (FDOT 346 2004)......................................................................133
9
7-8 Allowable Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Values for a 28-Day Test with a 90% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability. .........134
7-9 Allowable Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Values for a 28-Day Test with a 95% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability. .........134
7-10 Allowable Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Values for a 28-Day Test with a 99% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability. .........134
A-1 Appendix Concrete Mixture Labeling System Conversion. ............................................142
B-1 Concrete Compressive Strength Data Results .................................................................143
C-1 Initial Chloride Background Level of Concrete Mixtures. ..............................................148
C-2 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Chloride Profile Testing Results.................................................149
C-3 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Chloride Profile Testing Results.................................................163
D-1 Initial Chloride Background Level of Cored Samples.....................................................177
D-2 Chloride Profile Testing Results of Cored Samples. .......................................................178
E-1 RCP Coulombs Testing Results.......................................................................................184
E-2 SR (Lime Cured) Testing Results. ...................................................................................185
E-3 SR (Moist Cured) Testing Results. ..................................................................................189
H-1 HRP Project Concrete Mixture Designs. .........................................................................206
H-2 Initial Chloride Background Levels from HRP Project...................................................206
H-3 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Chloride Profile Testing from HRP Project................................206
H-4 St. George Island Bridge Pile Testing Project Chloride Profile Testing of Cored Samples ............................................................................................................................208
10
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page 2-1 Fick’s Second Law of Diffusion Regression Analysis Example. ......................................38
2-2 Ninety-day Salt Ponding Test Setup (AASHTO T259).....................................................38
2-3 Bulk Diffusion Test Setup (NordTest NTBuild 443). .......................................................39
2-4 Rapid Chloride Permeability Test Setup (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202). ....................39
2-5 Four-point Wenner Probe Test Setup. ...............................................................................40
2-6 Time-Dependent Diffusion Coefficients for Concrete having Various Water/Cementitious and Contents of High Reactivity Metakaolin ...................................40
2-7 Different Times t for Calculating the Curve Fitting Constant that Describes the Rate of Change of the Diffusion ................................................................................................41
2-8 Diffusion Regression Analysis Example of a Bridge Cored Sample. ...............................41
3-1 Air Curing of Cast Concrete Specimens............................................................................58
3-2 Casting of Field Mixture Specimens..................................................................................58
3-3 Field Samples Curing during transport to Laboratory. ......................................................58
3-4 FDOT District Map with Field Mixture Locations............................................................59
3-5 Hurricane Pass Bridge (HPB) General Span View............................................................59
3-6 Hurricane Pass Bridge (HPB) Substructure Elements. ......................................................60
3-7 Broadway Replacement East Bound Bridge (BRB) General Span View..........................60
3-8 Broadway Replacement East Bound Bridge (BRB) Substructure Elements. ....................60
3-9 Seabreeze West Bound Bridge (SWB) General Span View..............................................61
3-10 Seabreeze West Bound Bridge (SWB) Substructure Elements. ........................................61
3-11 Granada Bridge (GRB) General Span View......................................................................61
3-12 Granada Bridge (GRB) Substructure Elements .................................................................62
3-13 Turkey Creek Bridge (TCB) General Span View..............................................................62
3-14 Turkey Creek Bridge (TCB) Substructure Elements. ........................................................62
11
3-15 New Roosevelt (NRB) General Span View.......................................................................63
3-16 New Roosevelt (NRB) Substructure Elements. .................................................................63
3-17 Cored Element Location Defined by the Water Tide Region between High Tine Line (HTL) and the Organic Tide Line (OTL) ..........................................................................63
3-18 Bridge Coring Process .......................................................................................................64
3-19 Obtaining Cored Sample....................................................................................................64
3-20 Repairing Structural Cored Member..................................................................................65
4-1 Cutting Bulk Diffusion Samples into Two Halves. ...........................................................72
4-2 Bulk Diffusion Saline Solution Exposure..........................................................................72
4-3 RCP test top surface removal of the sample preparation procedure. .................................73
4-4 RCP Sample Preparation....................................................................................................73
4-5 RCP Sample Sealed with Epoxy........................................................................................74
4-6 RCP Sample Preconditioning Procedure ...........................................................................74
4-7 RCP Test Set-Up................................................................................................................75
4-8 Surface Resistivity Measurements. ....................................................................................75
4-9 Profile Grinding Using a Milling Machine........................................................................76
5-1 Comparative Compressive Strength Development of Laboratory Control Mixture and Laboratory Mixtures ..........................................................................................................98
5-2 Comparative Compressive Strength Development of Laboratory Control Mixture and Field Mixtures....................................................................................................................99
5-3 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Comparisons. ...........................................................100
5-4 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Comparisons. ...........................................................100
5-5 Pozzolans and Corrosion Inhibitors Effects on Bulk Diffusion Coefficients. .................101
5-6 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP (AASHTO T277)..........................................................101
5-7 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP (AASHTO T277)..........................................................102
5-8 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Lime Cured) Conductivity .............................................102
12
5-9 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Lime Cured) Conductivity .............................................103
5-10 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Moist Cured) Conductivity ............................................103
5-11 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Moist Cured) Conductivity ............................................104
5-12 Curing Method Comparison of Correlation Coefficients with 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Test...................................................................................................................................104
5-13 Curing Method Comparison of Correlation Coefficients with 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Test...................................................................................................................................105
5-14 AASHTO T259 Total Integral Chloride Content Analysis. ............................................105
5-15 RCP Test Coulomb Results Change With the Addition of Fly Ash and Silica Fume. ....106
5-16 RCP Test Coulomb Results Change With Age................................................................107
5-17 General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 1-Year Bulk Diffusion.........................................................................................................108
5-18 General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 3-Year Bulk Diffusion.........................................................................................................108
5-19 Relating Electrical Tests and 1-Year Bulk Diffusion ......................................................109
5-20 Relating Electrical Tests and 3-Year Bulk Diffusion ......................................................109
5-21 Schematic Process of Bulk Diffusion Correlation to RCP Using Monte Carlo Simulation ........................................................................................................................110
5-22 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient of Variation Change by the Number of Samples Used in Monte Carlo Simulation for the Different 28-Day RCP Standard Limits ..........111
5-23 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient of Variation Change by the Number of Samples Used in Monte Carlo Simulation for the Different 91-Day RCP Standard Limits ..........112
5-24 General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 1-Year Bulk Diffusion by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis.............................................112
5-25 General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 3-Year Bulk Diffusion by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis.............................................113
6-1 Diffusion Regression Analysis for Cored Samples for NRB and HPB Bridge ...............122
6-2 Diffusion Regression Analysis for Cored Sample GRB Bridge......................................122
6-3 Chloride Exposure Zones of a Typical Bridge Structure.................................................123
13
6-4 Time Dependent Changes in Diffusion Coefficients from Submerged and Tidal Zones................................................................................................................................123
6-5 Time Dependent Laboratory and Field Diffusion Coefficient Trend of Change.............124
7-1 90% Confidence Limit for Mean Response of 28-Day RCP Test vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Test Correlation. ..............................................................................................135
7-2 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Very Low Chloride Permeability..........................................................................135
7-3 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Moderate Chloride Permeability...........................................................................136
7-4 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Low Chloride Permeability...................................................................................136
7-5 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Negligible Chloride Permeability. ........................................................................137
7-6 90% Confidence Limit for Mean Response of 28-Day Surface Resistivity Test (Moist Cured) vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Test Correlation.............................................137
7-7 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Very Low Chloride Permeability...........................................138
7-8 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Moderate Chloride Permeability............................................138
7-9 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Low Chloride Permeability....................................................139
7-10 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements with a Negligible Chloride Permeability. .........................................139
B-1 Concrete Compression Strength Graphs. .........................................................................145
C-1 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Regression Analysis.................................................153
C-2 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Regression Analysis.................................................167
D-1 Cored Samples Chloride Diffusion Coefficient Regression Analysis. ............................181
F-1 Electrical Test Modified Linear Regression Analysis to 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Data ...194
F-2 Electrical Test Modified Linear Regression Analysis to 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Data ...195
G-1 RCP Coulombs vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients .................................................196
14
G-2 RCP Coulombs vs. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients .................................................197
G-3 SR (Lime Cured) vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients ..............................................198
G-4 SR (Lime Cured) vs. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients ..............................................200
G-5 SR (Moist Cured) vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients..............................................202
G-6 SR (Moist Cured) vs. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients..............................................204
H-1 Diffusion Coefficient Results from HRP Project.............................................................207
H-2 St. George Island Bridge Pile Testing Project Diffusion Coefficients ............................209
15
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
ALLOWABLE LIMITS FOR CONDUCTIVITY TEST METHODS AND DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT PREDICTION OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES EXPOSED TO MARINE
ENVIRONMENTS
By
Enrique A. Vivas
December 2007
Chair: H. R. Hamilton Major: Civil Engineering
This work details research conducted on methods used to rapidly determine the resistance
of concrete to the penetration of chloride ions. These methods, based on the electrical
conductivity of concrete, were Rapid Chloride Permeability (RCP) (AASHTO T277, ASTM
C1202) and Surface Resistivity (SR) (FM 5-578). The results of these conductivity tests were
compared to the Bulk Diffusion (NordTest NTBuild 443) test, which allow a more natural
penetration of the concrete by the chlorides.
Nineteen different mixtures were prepared using materials typically used in construction in
the State of Florida. Twelve mixtures were laboratory prepared and the remaining seven mixtures
were obtained at various field sites around the State. The concrete mixtures were designed to
have a range of permeabilities. Some of the designs included such pozzolans as fly ash and silica
fume. One mixture was prepared with calcium nitrate corrosion inhibitor.
Diffusion coefficients were determined from the Bulk Diffusion test using a 1 and 3-year
chloride exposure period. The electrical results from the short-term tests RCP and SR at 14, 28,
56, 91, 182 and 364 days of age were then compared to the long-term diffusion reference test.
16
A new calibrated scale to categorize the equivalent RCP measured charge in coulombs to
the chloride ion permeability of the concrete was developed. The proposed scale was based on
the correlation of the 91-day RCP results related to the chloride permeability measured by a 1-
year Bulk Diffusion test.
Finally, to provide additional data to which the laboratory long-term Bulk Diffusion results
can be compared, several concrete specimens were collected from six selected FDOT bridges
located in marine environments. A total of 14 core samples were obtained from the substructures
tidal zone of exposure. The average chloride exposure was ten-years. The diffusion results
obtained showed considerable lower chloride penetration than the 1 and 3 year laboratory results.
It appears that the laboratory methods overestimate the chloride ingress from concrete exposed in
the field.
17
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Deterioration of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures exposed to a marine
environment is a growing problem in the state of Florida and in many other countries throughout
the world. The main reason is corrosion of the reinforcing steel due to the penetration of chloride
ions through the concrete either through cracks or diffusion, or both. Chloride diffusion is the
principal mechanism that drives chloride ions through the pore structure of uncracked concrete
(Tuutti 1982; Stanish and Thomas 2003). Therefore, the ability to measure and predict chloride
diffusion, both for existing and planned structures is very important.
The chloride diffusion of porous materials such as concrete is determined conventionally
by tests based on the immersion of specimens in a known chloride concentration solution for a
period of time. These methods, however, are time-consuming and often required several years to
obtain representative results. Therefore, several accelerated test methods have been proposed
over the years to address the lack of practicability of the long-term diffusion procedures. These
accelerated test methods are intended to predict diffusion rates for a specific mixture design in a
relatively short time period. In some methods, the transport of chloride ions through the concrete
is accelerated by applying an external electrical potential, forcing the chloride ions through the
sample at an accelerated rate. The electrical resistivity of saturated concrete samples has also
been used as an indirect measure of the ease in which chlorides ions can penetrate concrete
(Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001). However, there is very little experimental information on
the ability of these accelerated procedures to reliably predict the penetration of chloride ions into
concrete under natural conditions.
The accelerated methods have been criticized because they do not necessarily replicate the
natural conditions of chloride penetration of concrete (Pfeifer, McDonald and Krauss 1994).
18
Nevertheless, the results of these accelerated methods are commonly used for mixture design
development and quality control. Though imperfect, a rational method to relate the short-term
results to the results of tests under more natural conditions might improve the usefulness of the
short-term results. Or at least, this would help to make the short-term results more meaningful.
Long-term diffusion coefficients obtained from uncracked concrete samples tested in the
laboratory were selected as a benchmark to evaluate the electrical tests. These diffusion
coefficients represented a more natural rate of chloride ingress into the concrete.
The objective of this research was to develop a rational method by which selected
accelerated electrical tests can be calibrated so that, with reasonable confidence, chloride
diffusion coefficients under natural conditions can be predicted for the typical concrete mixtures
used in this research. This approach was expanded to include the development of limits for use in
evaluating the results of the accelerated test methods. Moreover, laboratory diffusion test
methods were compared to chloride ingress into concrete exposed to aggressive marine
environments.
19
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Mechanism of Chloride Ion Transport
There are four fundamental modes that chloride ions are transported through concrete.
They are diffusion, capillary absorption, evaporative transport and hydrostatic pressure.
Diffusion is the movement of chloride ions under a concentration gradient. It will occur when the
concentration of chlorides on the outside of the concrete member is greater than on the inside.
The chlorides ions in concrete will naturally migrate from the regions of high concentration (high
energy) to the low concentration (low energy) as long as sufficient moisture is present along the
path of migration. Moreover, it is the principal mechanism that drives chloride ions into the pore
structure of concrete (Tuutti 1982; Stanish and Thomas 2003).
Capillary absorption occurs when the dry surface of the concrete is exposed to moisture
(perhaps containing chlorides). The solution is drawn into the porous matrix of the concrete by
capillary suction, much like a sponge. Generally, the shallow depth of chloride ion penetration
by capillary action will not reach the reinforcing steel. It will, however, reduce the distance that
chloride ions must travel by diffusion (Thomas, Pantazopoulou and Martin-Perez 1995).
The evaporative transport mechanism, also known as wicking effect, is produced by vapor
conduction from a wet side surface to a drier atmosphere. This is a vapor diffusivity process
where a retained body of liquid in the pore structure of the concrete evaporates and leaves
deposits of chlorides inside. For this mechanism to occur, it is necessary that one of the surfaces
be air-exposed.
Another mechanism for chloride ingress is permeation, driven by hydrostatic pressure
gradients. A hydrostatic pressure gradient can provide the required force to move liquid
containing chlorides ions through the internal concrete matrix. An external hydrostatic pressure
20
can be supplied by a constant wave action or by a retained body of water like bridges, piers,
dams, etc. that are exposed to a marine environment (Chini, Muszynski and Hicks 2003).
Diffusion of Chloride Ions
Chloride diffusion into concrete, like any other diffusion process, is controlled by Fick’s
First Law. It describes the flow of an impurity in a substance, showing that the rate of diffusion
of the material across a given plane is proportional to the concentration gradient across that
plane. It states for chloride diffusion into concrete or for any diffusion process considered in one-
dimensional situation that:
dxdCDJ −= (2-1)
where J - the rate of diffusion of the chloride ions D - chloride diffusion coefficient (m2/s) C - concentration of chloride ions (% mass) x - depth below the exposed surface (to the middle of a layer) (m). The minus sign means that mass is flowing in the direction of decreasing concentration.
The diffusion coefficient considered the effect of the chloride ions movement through a
heterogeneous material like the concrete. Hence, the rate of diffusion calculated includes the
effect of the concrete porous matrix that contains both solid and liquid components. The equation
can be used only when no changes in concentration in time are present. Therefore, this equation
can be only be used after a steady-state condition have been reached.
Fick’s Second Law is a derivation of the first law to represent the changes of concentration
gradient with time. It states that for the diffusion coefficient (D) the rate of change in
concentration with time (t) is proportional to the rate at which the concentration gradient changes
with distance in a given direction:
2
2
xCD
tC
∂∂
=∂∂ (2-2)
21
If the following boundary conditions are assumed: surface concentration is constant
(C(x=0, t>0) = C0), initial concentration in the concrete is zero (C(x>0, t=0) = 0) and
concentration at an infinite point far enough from the surface is zero (C(x=∞, t>0) = 0). The
equation can then be reduced to:
)4
(1),(
0 Dtxerf
CtxC
−= (2-3)
where C(x,t) - chloride concentration, measured at depth x and exposure time t (% mass) t - the exposure time (sec) erf - error function (tables with values of the error function are given in standard
mathematical reference books). The Crank’s solution to Fick’s Second Law of Diffusion can also be presented in the
following form:
⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛−−=
DtxerfCCCtx iss 4
)(),(C (2-4)
where Ci - initial chloride-ion concentration of the cementitious mixture prior to the submersion in the exposure solution (% mass)
A common method of determining the concrete chloride diffusion is to expose saturated
samples constantly to a chloride solution for a known period of time. The chloride concentrations
at varying depths are then obtained and diffusion coefficients and surface chloride concentrations
are determined by fitting the profiled data to the non-linear Fick’s Second Law of Diffusion
solution (Figure 2-1).
Test Methods to Predict Permeability of the Concrete
Permeability is defined as the resistance of the concrete to chloride ion penetration. Several
researchers (Dhir and Byars 1993; Li, Peng and Ma 1999; Page, Short and El Tarras 1981) have
attempted to capture the natural diffusion of chlorides through the concrete pore structure by
immersing or ponding samples with salt solution. These test methods, however, require
considerable time to obtain a realistic flow of chlorides. Consequently, numerous accelerated test
22
procedures have been designed to predict the penetration of chloride ions. The accelerated
methods permit diffusion rates to be established for a specific mixture design in a relatively short
time period. The migration of chlorides through the sample is generally accelerated by the
application of an electrical potential, forcing the chloride ions through the sample at an
accelerated rate.
The following sections describe the testing procedures that have been selected for the
research as the methods that represent the more natural ingress of chloride ions and some
accelerated test methods.
Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration (“90-Day Salt Ponding Test”) (AASHTO T259)
AASHTO T259 has been traditionally the most widely used method of determining the
actual resistance of concrete to chloride ion penetration. For this test, three concrete slabs
measuring 3-inch (76-mm) thick and 12-inch (305-mm) square are used. These slabs are moist
cured for 14 days and then kept for an additional 28 days in a drying room with a 50 percent
relative humidity environment. A dam is affixed to the non-finished face of the slab and a 3
percent NaCl solution is ponded on the surface, leaving the bottom face of the slabs exposed to
the drying environment (Figure 2-2). The specimens are maintained with a constant amount of
the chloride solution for a period of 90 days. They are removed from the drying room and
chloride ion content of half-inch thick slices is determined according to the standard method of
test for sampling and testing for chloride ion in concrete and concrete raw materials (ASTM
C1152/C1152M 1990 or AASHTO T 260 1997).
The ponding test has several limitations. The complete test takes at least 118 days to
complete (moist cured for 14 days, dried for 14 days and ponded for 90 days). This means that
the chloride permeability samples must be cast at least four months before a particular concrete
23
mixture will be used in the field. In addition, the 90-day ponding period is often too short to
allow sufficient chloride penetration in higher strength concrete. Pozzolans such as fly ash or
silica fume have been shown to greatly reduce the permeability of concrete, thus reducing the
penetration of chlorides over the 90-day test period (Scanlon and Sherman 1996). Consequently,
an extended ponding time is generally necessary to ensure sufficient penetration of chloride ions
(Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001; Scanlon and Sherman 1996).
Another drawback of this test method is that sampling every 0.5 inch (13 mm) does not
provide a fine enough measurement to allow for determination of a profile of the chloride
penetration. Only the average of the chloride penetration in those slices is obtained, not the
actual variation of the chloride concentration over that 0.5 inch (13 mm) (Hooton, Thomas and
Stanish 2001). The actual penetration depth is a more useful measurement rather than an average
chloride content as measured in the slices (Hooton 1997). This is particularly important in low
permeability concrete where the chloride content can change drastically over a short length.
The ponding test forces chloride intrusion through immediate absorption; long-term
diffusion of chloride into the concrete under a static concentration gradient; and wicking due to
drying from the exposed surface of the specimen (Scanlon and Sherman 1996). Since the sample
initially has to be dried for 28 days, an absorption effect occurs when it is first exposed to the
NaCl solution by capillary suction, pulling chlorides into the concrete (Glass and Buenfeld
1995). During the ponding process one of the exposed faces is submerged in the solution while
the other is exposed to air at 50 percent relative humidity (presumably to model the underside of
a bridge deck). This creates vapor conduction (wicking) from the wet side face of the sample to
the drier face, which enhances the natural diffusion of the chloride ions. There is still some
controversy concerning the relative importance of these mechanisms in actual field conditions.
24
McGrath and Hooton (1999) have suggested that the relative importance of the absorption effect
is overestimated. Hooton, Thomas and Stanish (2001) have indicated that the relative amounts of
chloride ions drawn into the concrete by the absorption effect compared to the amount entering
by diffusion will be greater when the test is run only for a short period of time compared to the
relative amounts during the lifetime of a structure. Moreover, they exposed that the wicking
effect is also overestimated by the test procedure. The actual structure humidity gradient will
likely be less, at least for part of the time, than the exposed during the test.
Bulk Diffusion Test (Nordtest NTBUILD 443)
The bulk diffusion procedure was developed in order to address some of the problems with
the 90-day salt ponding test. The test was standardized as a Nordtest procedure (an organization
for test methods in the Nordic countries). The main focus of the modifications was to attain a
better controlled “diffusion only” test with no contribution from absorption or wicking effects
(Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001). This will improve the precision of the profile obtained for
the simulation of a long-term chloride penetration. The method can be applied to new samples or
samples taken from existing structures.
The sample configuration used for this procedure is a 4-inch (102-mm) diameter by 4-inch
(102-mm) long concrete cylinder. In contrast to AASHTO T259, the specimens are immediately
placed in a saturated limewater solution after a 28 days moist cured period. This wet condition
prevents the initial sorption when the solution first contacts the specimen. Furthermore, the
sample is sealed on all faces except the one that is exposed to the 2.8 M NaCl solution (16.5%
NaCl) (Figure 2-3). The test procedure calls for an exposure period of at least 35 days for lower-
quality concretes (NTBuild 443 1995). For higher-quality concrete mixtures, the exposure time
must be extended to at least 90-days.
25
The chloride profiles are performed immediately after the exposure period. The profile
layers are obtained by grinding the sample with a diamond-tipped bit. The benefit of pulverizing
the profile by this method is the accuracy of depths that can be attained. Chloride profiles with
depth increments on the order of 0.02 inch (0.5 mm) can be attained. The actual chloride
penetration depth calculated by this method gives more resolution than the 0.5-inch (13-mm)
layers obtained from 90-day salt ponding test procedure.
Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration (“Rapid Chloride Permeability”)(AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202)
The rapid chloride permeability test (RCP) is one of the short-term procedures most widely
used to assess concrete durability. The test is, however, a measurement of the electrical
conductivity of concrete, rather than a direct measure of concrete permeability. Nonetheless, its
results correlate reasonably well with those from the long term 90-day salt ponding test (Whiting
1981). More recent research has found inconsistent test results when the samples contained
pozzolans or corrosion inhibitors (Pfeifer, McDonald and Krauss 1994; Scanlon and Sherman
1996 and Wee, Suryavanshi and Tin 2000).
The test method measures the electrical conductance by subjecting a 4-inch (102-mm)
diameter by 2-inch (51-mm) thick saturated sample to a 60-volt DC potential for a period of six
hours. One side of the specimen is immersed in a reservoir with a 3.0 percent NaCl solution, and
the other side to another reservoir containing a 0.3 N NaOH solution (1.2% NaOH) (Figure 2-4).
The cumulative electrical charge, measured in coulombs, represents the current passed through
the concrete sample during the test period. The area under the current versus time curve was
found to correlate with the resistance of the specimen to chloride ion penetration (Whiting 1981).
According to ASTM C1202, permeability levels based on charge passed through the sample are
presented on Table 2-1.The RCP test has received much criticism from researchers during the
26
past decade for inconsistencies found when the electrical resistivity-based measurements
obtained are compared with diffusion-based test procedures like the 90-day salt ponding test
(Andrade 1993; Feldman et al. 1994; Pfeifer, McDonald and Krauss 1994; Scanlon and Sherman
1996 and Shi, Stegemann and Caldwell 1998; Shi 2003). One of the main criticisms is that
permeability depends on the pore structure of the concrete, while electrical conductivity of the
water saturated concrete depends not only on the pore structure but also the chemistry of pore
solution. Changes in pore solution chemistry generate considerable alterations in the electrical
conductivity of the sample. These variations can be produced by adding fly ash, silica fume,
metakaoline or ground blast furnace slag. Silica fume, metakaoline and ground blast furnace slag
are reactive materials that may considerably improve the pore structure and reduce the
permeability of the concrete. This is not the case with fly ash, however, because it is slow
reacting and generally reduces permeability by only 10 to 20% at 90 days. In addition, the
reduction in charge passed in the presence of fly ash is mainly due to a reduction of pore solution
alkalinity, rather than a reduction in the permeability of the concrete (Shi 2003).
Another criticism is that the high voltage of 60 volts applied during the test leads to an
increase in temperature, especially for a low quality concrete, which may result in an apparent
increase in the permeability due to a higher charge being passed (McGrath and Hooton 1999;
Snyder et al. 2000 and Yang, Cho and Huang 2002). Several modifications to the procedures
have been proposed to minimize the temperature effect. One (Yang, Cho and Huang 2002)
proposes an increase in the standardized acrylic reservoirs from 250 ml (as recommended by
ASTM C1202) to 4750 ml. It was found that the chloride diffusion coefficient from RCP reached
a steady-state after chloride-ions pass through the specimen. Another modification is to record
27
the charge passed at the 30-minute mark and linearly extrapolate to the specified test period of 6
hours (McGrath and Hooton 1999).
The standardized RCP test method, ASTM C1202, is commonly required by construction
project specifications for both precast and cast-in-place concrete. An arbitrary value, chosen
from the scale shown on Table 2-1 of less than 1000 coulombs is usually specified by the
engineer or owner for concrete elements under extremely aggressive environments (Pfeifer,
McDonald and Krauss 1994). This low RCP coulomb limit is required by the Florida Department
of Transportation (FDOT) when Class V or Class V Special concrete containing silica fume or
metakaolin as a pozzolan is tested on 28 days concrete samples (FDOT 346 2004).
Surface Resistivity Test Using the Four-Point Wenner Probe (FM 5-578)
Concrete conductivity is fundamentally related to the permeability of fluids and the
diffusivity of ions through a porous material (Whiting and Mohamad 2003). As a result, the
electrical resistivity can be used as an indirect measure of the ease in which chlorides ions can
penetrate concrete (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001). The resistivity of a saturated porous
medium, such as concrete, is mainly measured by the conductivity through its pore solution
(Streicher and Alexander 1995).
Two procedures have been developed to determine the electrical resistivity of concrete.
The first method involves passing a direct current through a concrete specimen placed between
two electrodes. The electrical concrete porous resistivity between the two electrodes is measured.
The actual resistance measured by this method can be reduced by an unknown amount due to
polarization at the probe contact interface. The second method solves the polarization problem
by passing an alternating current (AC) through the sample. A convenient tool to measure using
this method is the four-point Wenner Probe resistivity meter (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish
2001). The set up utilizes four equally spaced surface contacts, where a small alternating current
28
is passed through the concrete sample between the outer pair of contacts. The current drive
presents a trapezoidal waveform at a frequency of 13-Hz. A digital voltmeter is used to measure
the potential difference between the two inner electrodes, obtaining the resistance from the ratio
of voltage to current (Figure 2-5). This resistance is then used to calculate resistivity of the
section. The resistivity ρ of a prismatic section of length L and section area A is given by:
LAR
=ρ (2-5)
where R is the resistance of the specimen calculated by dividing the potential V by the applied current I.
The resistivity ρ for a concrete cylinder can be calculated by the following formula:
⎟⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛
⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛=
IV
Ld 14
2πρ (2-6)
where d is the cylinder diameter and L its length (Morris, Moreno and Sagües 1996).
Assuming that the concrete cylinder has homogeneous semi-infinite geometry (the
dimensions of the element are large in comparison of the probe spacing), and the probe depth is
far less than the probe spacing, the concrete cylinder resistivity ρ is given by Equation 2-7
( ) ⎟⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛=
IVaπρ 2 (2-7)
where a is the electrode spacing (Figure 2-5).
The non-destructive nature, speed, and ease of use make the Wenner Probe technique a
promising alternative test to characterize concrete permeability. Results from Wenner Probe
testing can vary significantly if the degree of saturation or conductivity of the concrete is
inconsistent. Techniques to achieve more uniform saturation, such as vacuum saturation or
submerging in water overnight, can be performed in the laboratory. However, the laboratory pre-
saturation procedure still presents some inconsistencies. The known conductivity of the added
solution changes when mixed with the ions (mainly alkali hydroxides) still present in the
29
concrete pores after the drying process (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001). To overcome this
problem, Streicher and Alexander (1995) suggested the use of a high conductivity solution, for
example 5 M NaCl, to saturate the sample so that the change in conductivity from the ions
remaining in the concrete is insignificant.
Use of the Wenner Probe on concrete in the field presents further complications. The test
can give misleading results when used on field samples with unknown conductivity pore
solution. Therefore, the pore solution must be removed from the sample to determine its
resistivity or the sample must be pre-saturated with a known conductivity solution (Hooton,
Thomas and Stanish 2001). Moreover, pre-saturation of the concrete requires that the sample be
first dried to prevent dilution of the saturation solution. Some in situ drying techniques, however,
can cause microcracks to form in the pore structure of the concrete, resulting in an increase in
diffusivity. Another possible problem with the in situ readings is that reinforcing steel can cause
a “short circuit” path and give a misleadingly low reading. The readings should be taken at right-
angles to the steel rather than along the reinforcing length to minimize this error (Broomfield and
Millard 2002). Hooton, Thomas and Stanish (2001) have suggested that because of these
problems, the Wenner probe should only be used in the laboratory, on either laboratory-cast
specimens or on cores taken from the structure without steel.
The test probe spacing is critical to obtaining accurate measurements of surface resistivity.
The Wenner resistivity technique assumes that the material measured is homogeneous (Chini,
Muszynski and Hicks 2003). In addition, the electrical resistivity of the concrete is mainly
governed by the cement paste microstructure (Whiting, and Mohamad 2003). It depends upon
the capillary pore size, pore system complexity and moisture content. Changes in aggregate type,
however, can influence the electrical resistivity of concrete. Monfore (1962) measured the
30
electrical resistivity of several aggregates typically used in concrete by themselves (Table 2-2).
The resistivity of a concrete mixture containing granite aggregate has higher than a mixture
containing limestone (Whiting and Mohamad 2003). Moreover, other research (Hughes, Soleit
and Brierly 1985) shows that as the aggregate content increases, the electrical resistance of the
concrete will also increase. Gowers and Millard (1999) determined that the minimum probe
spacing should be 1.5 times the maximum aggregate size, or ¼ the depth of the specimen, to
guarantee more accurate readings. Morris, Moreno and Sagües 1996 suggest averaging multiple
readings taken with varying internal probe spacings. Another reasonable technique is to average
multiple readings in different locations of the concrete surface. In the case of test cylinders, the
readings can be made in four locations at 90-degree increments to minimized variability induced
by the presence of a single aggregate particle interfering with the readings (Chini, Muszynski
and Hicks 2003).
Chini, Muszynski and Hicks (2003) evaluated the possible replacement of the widely used
electrical RCP test (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202) by the simple non-destructive surface
resistivity test. The research program correlated results from the two tests from a wide
population of more than 500 sample sets. The samples were collected from actual job sites of
concrete pours at the state of Florida. The tests were compared over the entire sample population
regardless of concrete class or admixture present to evaluate the strength of the relationship
between procedures. The two tests showed a strong relationship. The levels of agreement (R2)
values reported were as high as 0.95 for samples tested at 28 days and 0.93 for samples tested at
91 days. Finally, a rating table to aid the interpretation of the surface resistivity results was
proposed (Table 2-3) based on the previous permeability ranges provided in the standard RCP
test (Table 2-1).
31
Time Dependent Diffusion in Concrete
As concrete matures, the ongoing internal hydration process reduces the diffusion
coefficient (Stanish and Thomas 2003). The diffusion will decrease as the time passes since the
capillary pore volume is reduce by the continued formation of internal hydration products.
Moreover, some chloride ions will become chemically or physically bound as they penetrate the
pore system (Nokken et al. 2006). Previous research has found that the change in chloride
diffusion during time followed a nonlinear tendency (Boddy et al. 1999; Mangat and Molloy
1994; Nokken et al. 2006). When plotted on a logarithmic scale the data were found to be linear.
(Figure 2-6). Therefore, the variation of the chloride diffusion coefficient with time can be
expressed as a power function:
mref
ref tt
DtD ⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛=)( (2-8)
where D(t) - diffusion coefficient at time t (instantaneous diffusion coefficient) Dref - the diffusion coefficient at some reference time tref m - curve fitting constant that describes the rate of change of the diffusion coefficient. The constant m depends on the concrete mix proportions such as the type of cementitious
materials used for the mixture to account for the rate of reduction of diffusion with time (Nokken
et al. 2006). Only few values of the m are available from the literature for relatively short time
periods of exposure. Although these data represent only concrete behavior at early ages (up to 3
years), further research (Thomas and Bamforth 1999) have indicated that the transport properties
continue to decay at the same rate predicted from these early age tests. Further research to
properly quantify this parameter would improve the precision of the diffusion predictions. Table
2-4 shows some reported constant m values by previous research projects (Stanish and Thomas
2003; Boddy, Hooton and Gruber 2001; Thomas and Bamforth 1999; Nokken et al. 2006;
Thomas et al. 1999).
32
The mathematical model proposed by Crank’s solution to Fick’s second law of diffusion
assumes a constant diffusion coefficient over the testing period. This same mathematical model
is typically used in some form to calculate the diffusion coefficient for the previously discussed
chloride penetration test methods. In reality, the diffusion coefficient is decreasing rather rapidly
(Figure 2-6) during the early age of the sample. Consequently, the resultant coefficient value is
an average of the changing diffusion coefficient over the period of exposure. This average
measured diffusion coefficient will equal the instantaneous diffusion coefficient at some point
during the testing period. The diffusion coefficient obtained from Equation 2-8, D(t), represents
this instantaneous diffusion coefficient at time t. Given that the change in diffusion with time is
non-linear, the determination of the effective age during the exposure that correlates to the
average diffusion coefficient determined for that period is not straightforward. Stanish and
Thomas (2003) developed a useful method to establish at what age the instantaneous diffusion
coefficient, effective age, is equal to the average diffusion coefficient. To determine this age, the
instantaneous diffusion coefficient presented in Equation 2-8 was integrated over time in order to
determine an average of diffusion coefficient:
∫
∫ ⎟⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛
=2
1
2
1t
t
t
t
mref
ref
AVGdt
dtt
tD
D (2-9)
where DAVG - average diffusion coefficient over the testing period. t1 and t2 – represent the age of the concrete at the start and completion of the diffusion test exposure, respectively. Additionally, the effective age at which the average of diffusion coefficient occurs was
also determined from the Equation 2-8:
m
eff
refrefAVG t
tDD ⎟
⎟⎠
⎞⎜⎜⎝
⎛= (2-10)
33
where: teff – effective age at which the DAVG occurs.
The obtained expression by equating Equations 2-9 and 2-10 determines at what age the
average of diffusion coefficient will occur based on diffusion tests conditions (beginning and end
of the immersion period, t1 and t2) and the rate of change of diffusion coefficient with time, m.
Moreover, a subsequent research project by Nokken et al. (2006) calculated different diffusion
coefficient estimations by using three different times (effective age, average age and total age)
(Figure 2-7). They found that there was a significant variation in the diffusion coefficients
calculated at the selected times in the time-dependent reduction Equation 2-8. This can lead to
significantly conservative or unconservative estimations of the service life of structures (Stanish
and Thomas 2003).
The concrete diffusion coefficient values have been used to model the period of time for
chloride ions to reach a critical corrosion concentration at the surface of the steel reinforcement
(Kirkpatricka et al. 2002). The time for corrosion initiation can be estimated from the diffusion
equation (Equation 2-4) when the concentration of chloride ions at steel reinforcement (C(x,t)) is
set equal to the chloride corrosion initiation concentration. Therefore, it is believed that this
estimation would be more accurate if the rate of change in the concrete diffusion properties with
time were included in the prediction (Nokken et al. 2006).
Effective Diffusion Coefficients of Concrete Structures Exposed to Marine Environments
The most notable assumption when using the previously described methods to determine
diffusion coefficients is that diffusion is the unique chloride mechanism that transports the
chloride ions through the concrete. This is a reasonable assumption for tests conducted under
controlled laboratory conditions, such as the bulk diffusion test. The bulk diffusion test is
believed to attain controlled “diffusion only” results with no contribution from other chloride
transports mechanisms. Figure 2-8 shows a typical example of a bulk diffusion sample fit to the
34
non-linear Fick’s Second Law of Diffusion. The results show very good agreement with the
expected diffusion regression. However, this controlled laboratory testing method presents
several drawbacks on estimating the lifetime behavior of concrete structural members exposed to
aggressive marine environments with consistently high temperature and humidity. These
environment conditions forced the chloride intrusion through additional mechanisms. Chloride
ingress by absorption and leaching of surface chloride are some of the additional mechanisms
induced by these environmental conditions. In order to differentiate between them, previous
researches (Kranc and Sagüés 2003; Sohanghpurwala 2006) have catalogued the results obtained
from laboratory samples as “apparent” diffusion coefficients and “effective” for diffusion
coefficients calculated from samples exposed to field conditions.
A marine substructure element is intermittently subjected to chloride exposure due to
changes of the water tides. These changes in water tides are due to the periodic tidal forces and
the effects of meteorological, hydrological and oceanographic conditions. This wetting and
drying phenomenon creates a chloride intrusion mechanism by absorption. Since the concrete
exposed surface is dry during a low tide period and hot weather conditions, an absorption effect
occurs when it is exposed to a high tide water level. The absorption is generated by capillary
suction of the concrete at the surface pulling chlorides into the concrete. This allows chloride ion
to penetrate more rapidly than by natural diffusion. The chloride ions then continue to move by
natural diffusion. Therefore, the absorption effect decreases the chloride path to reach the
reinforcing steel (Thomas et al. 1995).
The continuous changes on the water tides also induce leaching of unbonded shallow
surface chlorides. During concrete drying period, shallow surface water evaporates and chlorides
are left either as chemically bonded to the pore walls or as unbonded crystal forms.
35
Subsequently, when the concrete is again wetted, some of these unbonded crystals are leached
out of the concrete surface. Therefore, chloride profiles content can thus differ from that of a
chloride penetration under permanent immersion. The chloride concentration near the exposed
surface can be considerably less than deeper into the concrete. The profile shown in Figure 2-8
was obtained from a cored sample at the splash zone of a substructure element of a bridge. The
profile shows considerably lower chloride concentration near to the surface than the predicted by
Fick’s Law. It also shows that the consequent chloride profile penetrations, following the initial
surface values affected by leaching, fit the diffusion trend behavior. These consequent chlorides
accumulated at a further penetration either by the initial diffusion or absorption followed a
diffusion behavior. Therefore, effective diffusion coefficients can be also approximately
calculated by fitting the Fick’s Second Law of Diffusion by excluding these misleading peaks in
the regression analysis.
The effective diffusion coefficients account for all the effects that an aggressive
environment could subject a concrete element. Therefore, it provides a good estimate of the rate
of migration of chloride ions into the concrete. Previous researches (Sagüés 1994, Sagüés et al.
2001) have quantified few effective diffusion coefficients for particular structures located at the
state of Florida. These diffusion coefficients were calculated from cored samples obtained at
different bridge substructure locations around the state. The high cost and labor associated with
coring concrete samples from existing structures make this approach of analysis sometimes
untenable. Therefore, there is limited information on how these diffusion coefficients can be
predicted.
36
Table 2-1. Comparison of RCP Results with Ponding Tests (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202) (Whiting 1981).
Chloride Permeability
Charge (Coulombs) Type of Concrete
Total Integral Chloride to 41 mm Depth After 90-day Ponding Test
High > 4,000 High water-to-cement ratio (>0.6) conventional Portland cement concrete
> 1.3
Moderate 2,000 - 4,000 Moderate water-to-cement ratio (0.4-0.5) conventional Portland cement concrete
0.8 - 1.3
Low 1,000 - 2,000 Low water-to-cement ratio (<0.4) conventional Portland cement concrete
0.55 – 0.8
Very Low 100 - 1,000 Latex modified concrete, internally sealed concrete
0.35 – 0.55
Negligible < 100 Polymer impregnated concrete, polymer concrete
< 0.35
Table 2-2. Measured Electrical Resistivities of Typical Aggregates used for Concrete (Monfore
1968). Type of Aggregate Resistivity (ohm-cm) Sandstone 18,000 Limestone 30,000 Marble 290,000 Granite 880,000 Table 2-3. Apparent Surface Resistivity for 4-inch (102-mm) Diameter by 8-inch (204-mm)
Long Concrete Cylinder using a Four-point Wenner Probe with 1.5-inch (38-mm) Probe Spacing. Values for 28 and 91-day Test (Chini, Muszynski and Hicks 2003).
Surface Resistivity Test Chloride Ion
Permeability RCP Test Charge
(Coulombs) 28-Day Test
(KOhm-cm) 91-Day Test
(KOhm-cm) High > 4,000 < 12 < 11 Moderate 2,000 - 4,000 12 -21 11 -19 Low 1,000 - 2,000 21 – 37 19 – 37 Very Low 100 - 1,000 37 – 254 37 – 295 Negligible < 100 > 254 > 295
37
Table 2-4. Several Curve Fitting Constants m that Describes the Rate of Change of the Diffusion Coefficient with Time for Various Concrete Mix Designs (Stanish and Thomas 2003; Boddy, Hooton and Gruber 2001; Thomas and Bamforth 1999; Nokken et al. 2006; Thomas et al. 1999).
Mix Design(a) m Mix Design(a) m 0.40w/c-0% 0.43 0.35w/c-12%FA 0.77 0.50w/c-0% 0.32 0.35w/c-18%FA 0.70 0.66w/c-0% 0.10 0.31w/c-12%FA 0.55 0.30w/c-4% SF 0.60 0.48w/c-70%Slag 1.20 0.40w/c-8% SF 0.61 0.30w/c-4%SF, 25%Slag 0.64 0.40w/c-12% SF 0.49 0.30w/c-8%SF, 25%Slag 0.75 0.50w/c-25%FA 0.66 0.40w/c-8%HRM 0.44 0.50w/c-56%FA 0.79 0.40w/c-12%HRM 0.50 0.54w/c-30%FA 0.70 0.30w/c-10%SF, 25%FA 0.45 (a) Fly-Ash (FA), Silica Fume (SF), Ground Blast Furnace Slag (Slag) and High Reactivity Metakaolin
(HRM).
38
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
0 20 40 60 80Mid-Layer Profile from Surface (mm)
Chl
orid
e C
once
ntra
tion
(%C
oncr
ete)
Test ValuesFitted Regression
Surface Chloride Concentration
Figure 2-1. Fick’s Second Law of Diffusion Regression Analysis Example.
3 % NaCl Solution
3 in0.5 in
12 in
12 in
ConcreteSlab
Plastic dam
50 % relative humidity atmosphere
Figure 2-2. Ninety-day Salt Ponding Test Setup (AASHTO T259).
39
16.5 % NaCl Solution
Sealed on All Faces Except One
Concrete Cylinder (4 in diameter, 4 in length)
Figure 2-3. Bulk Diffusion Test Setup (NordTest NTBuild 443).
Data Logger
Stainless steel anode Stainless steel cathode
3.0 % NaClreservoir1.2 % NaOH
reservoir
60 V Power supply + -
Epoxy Coated Concrete Sample (4 in diameter, 2 in length)
Figure 2-4. Rapid Chloride Permeability Test Setup (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202).
40
a a a
Current Applied (I)
Potential Measured (V)
Con
cret
e Su
rfac
e
to b
e Te
sted
Current FlowLines
Equipotential lines
Figure 2-5. Four-point Wenner Probe Test Setup.
0
5E-12
1E-11
1.5E-11
2E-11
0 400 800 1200Total Time (days)
App
. Diff
usio
n (m
2 /s)
0.4/0%HRM 0.4/8%HRM0.4/12%HRM 0.3/0%HRM0.3/8%HRM 0.3/12%HRM A
1E-13
1E-12
1E-11
1E-10
10 100 1000 10000Total Time (days)
App
. Diff
usio
n (m
2 /s)
0.4/0%HRM 0.4/8%HRM0.4/12%HRM 0.3/0%HRM0.3/8%HRM 0.3/12%HRM B
Figure 2-6. Time-Dependent Diffusion Coefficients for Concrete having Various
Water/Cementitious and Contents of High Reactivity Metakaolin (HRM) Plotted using A) Linear Scale and B) Logarithmic Scale (Boddy, Hooton and Gruber 2001).
41
Figure 2-7. Different Times t for Calculating the Curve Fitting Constant that Describes the Rate
of Change of the Diffusion (Nokken et al. 2006).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 10 20 30 40 50Mid-Layer from Surface (mm)
Chl
orid
e C
once
ntra
tion
( lb/
yd3 )
Include in the RegressionNot Include in the RegressionFitted Regression
Figure 2-8. Diffusion Regression Analysis Example of a Bridge Cored Sample.
42
CHAPTER 3 CONCRETE MIXTURE DESIGNS AND FIELD CORE SAMPLING
Concrete Mixtures
Nineteen concrete mixtures were selected and prepared in the laboratory and in the field
for the project. A labeling system was implemented to identify each of the selected concrete
mixture designs. The first term of the notation system represents the water-cementitious ratio in
percentage, followed by the cementitious amount in pounds per cubic yard (lb/yd3) and finally
the pozzolans or corrosion inhibitor contents in percentage of cementitious measured by weight.
For example the concrete mixture labeled as “35_752_8SF_20F” (Table 3-2) has a water-
cementitious ratio of 35 percent (35%), 752 pounds per cubic yard (lb/yd3) of total cementitious
materials, 8 percent (8%) by weight of cementitious of Silica Fume and 20 percent (20%) by
weight of cementitious of Fly-Ash.
Laboratory Concrete Mixtures
Twelve representative mixtures using locally available materials in the State of Florida
were selected and cast in the laboratory, such that they represented a variety of different concrete
qualities and constituents. These concrete mixtures were selected from a range of possibilities,
from the most permeable possible designs to less permeable quality mixtures that include
pozzolans and a single mixture containing calcium nitrite corrosion inhibitor (Table 3-1 and
Table 3-2). The wide permeability range between the selected designs should allow a better point
of comparison between the test procedures under for different conditions.
The mixtures were performed under controlled environmental conditions, with a constant
air temperature for each mixture. The size of the concrete batch for each mixture was six cubic
feet (0.17 cubic meters). This volume of concrete included the specimens, concrete for quality
43
control testing, and several extra samples. The quality control procedures executed during
mixing and casting of the test samples were:
Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete (ASTM C 143).
Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Volumetric Method (ASTM C 173).
Standard Test Method for Temperature of Freshly Mixed Portland Cement Concrete (ASTM C 1064).
Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight) of Freshly Mixed Concrete (ASTM C 138).
The standard process for casting concrete cylinders proposed by the AASHTO T23 method
was followed (Table 3-3). An external vibration device, also known as vibrating table was used
to ensure complete compaction of the specimens. The 4-inch (102-mm) diameter cylinders were
cast and vibrated in two layers as is shown in Table 3-3. The vibration period for each mixture
was determined by visual inspection of the first set of samples vibrated. The samples were
vibrated until the larger air bubbles ceased breaking through the top of surface but before visible
segregation occurred. It was generally between 15-seconds to 30-seconds for each inserted layer.
After the samples were cast in their respective molds and the top exposed surface finished with
the help of a trowel, they were left approximately 24-hours for atmospheric curing. During this
period, the exposed surfaces of samples were covered with plastic bags (Figure 3-1) to minimize
evaporation of the water in the surface of the concrete. Finally, the samples were de-molded and
placed in their particular curing environment until their testing date.
Field Concrete Mixtures
In addition to the laboratory concrete mixtures, seven field mixtures obtained from FDOT
construction projects around the State were collected. The mixtures were chosen to represent a
wide range of concrete permeabilities through the use of different constituents. From the FDOT
concrete specification (Table 3-4), Class II concrete was chosen as the lower bound of the range
44
as most permeable, and Class V and VI as the least permeable (Table 3-5 and Table 3-6). These
mixtures also represent the typical concretes used in structural members such as bridge concrete
barriers, prestressed concrete beams and piles that are constantly exposed to chloride attacks.
The State of Florida is divided by the FDOT into seven geographic regions (Figure 3-4). In
order to attain a balanced group of samples that reflected local materials of the state, specimens
from three districts were collected. Samples from District 3 (North Florida), District 2 (Central
Florida) and District 4 (South Florida) were selected (Figure 3-4 and Table 3-7). The concrete
batches for the specimens were supplied directly from mixer trucks to several wheel barrows at
the job site or at the ready mix plant (Figure 3-2). The volume of concrete supplied was enough
for the casting of the specimens, quality control testing, and several extra samples. The same
quality control testing and standard casting procedures for the laboratory mixtures were followed
in the field.
After the samples were cast in their respective molds, they were left approximately 24-
hours for atmospheric air curing with the exposed surfaces covered by plastic bags to prevent
evaporation of water from the concrete. Afterward, they were de-molded and submerged in water
tanks so that their treatment prior to arriving at the laboratory is controlled curing conditions was
as uniform as possible (Figure 3-3). The high temperature of the water tanks induced by
Florida’s hot weather was controlled by the addition of several bags of ice.
Field Core Sampling
The laboratory test procedure Bulk Diffusion was used to estimate the long-term chloride
diffusion performance of concrete. However, this test was conducted using a maximum of 3-year
chloride exposure. Longer term diffusion test results are needed to confirm these laboratory
findings. Therefore, to provide additional data to which these laboratory results can be
45
corroborated, several concrete specimens were collected from FDOT bridges located in marine
environments.
Bridge Selection
With the assistance of FDOT personal, recently constructed bridges (since 1991) were
surveyed. The search criteria included bridges in which the structural elements were originally
designed to meet the FDOT specifications (FDOT 346 2004) for concrete elements under
extremely aggressive environments. The mixture designs for the selected structural elements
used silica fume as a pozzolan for a FDOT class V or class V special mixture. The search criteria
also included mixtures for which RCP data were available (Table 3-11). This information
allowed a direct comparison with the laboratory results reported in previous sections. Six bridges
had substructures that met these requirements (Table 3-8, Table 3-9 and Table 3-10).
The intent of the sampling was to take concrete cores from undamaged concrete near the
tide lines. The cores were then sliced or ground and chloride content was measured to produce a
profile, from which the diffusion coefficient was calculated.
Coring Procedures
A total of 14 core samples were obtained from the substructures of the six selected bridges.
Figure 3-5 through Figure 3-16 show a general view of the bridge structures and the cored
substructure elements. Concrete cores were extracted from the substructure elements in the tidal
region between the high tide line (HTL) and the organic tide line (OTL) (Figure 3-17). HTL was
determined visually by the oil or scum stain on the structural element. OTL was also identified
visually as the elevation that appeared to have continuous marine growth present such as
barnacles or other growth. This line is usually lower than the HTL and represents a tide level that
is regularly inundated providing a regular source of water to support the marine growth and to
keep the concrete saturated. The location of the extracted cores was measured from HTL and
46
OTL to the sample center. Core elevations ranged from 3-inch (76-mm) to 12-inch (305-mm)
below HTL and 3-inch (76-mm) to 10-inch (254-mm) above OTL. Table 3-12 shows a summary
of the date and location of the cores were extracted.
A rebar locator was used to measure the depth of cover and bar spacing in the structural
members (Figure 3-18). Due to high variability, however, the coring bit rarely reached the
reinforcement during the drilling process (Figure 3-19). The samples were cored with a
cylindrical 4-inch (102-mm) diameter core drill bit, resulting in a core diameter of 3-3/4-inch
(95-mm). The specimens were cored using a fresh-water bit-cooling system. After the desired
depth was reached, the cores were extracted as shown in Figure 3-19. The structural members
were then repaired using a high bond strength mortar containing silica fume. The mortar material
was applied and compacted in several layers as is shown in Figure 3-20.
47
Table 3-1. Laboratory Mixtures Material Sources.
Materials Source Portland Cement CEMEX Type II Fly-Ash Boral Materials Technologies Inc. Fly Ash Class F Classified Fly-Ash Boral Materials Technologies Inc. Micron3 Silica Fume W.R. Grace Force 10,000D Metakaolin Burgess Pigment Co. Burgess #30 Slag Lafarge NewCem-Grade 120 Calcium Nitrite W.R. GRACE DCI-S Water Gainesville, FL Fine Aggregate Silica Sand Coarse Aggregate Crushed Limestone Air Entrainer W.R. Grace Darex Water Reducer W.R. Grace WRDA 64 Super Plasticizer W.R. GRACE Daracem 19 Table 3-2. Laboratory Mixture Designs. Mixture Name(a) Materials 49_564 35_752 45_752 28_900_8SF
_20F 35_752
_20F 35_752
_12CF Casting Date 9/29/03 10/15/03 10/21/03 10/22/03 10/23/03 1/5/04 W/C 0.49 0.35 0.45 0.28 0.35 0.35 Cement (pcy) 564 752 752 648 601.6 661.8 Pozzolan 1
(pcy) - - - Fly-Ash
(20%) 180
Fly-Ash (20%) 150.4
Classified Fly-Ash
(12%) 90.2
Pozzolan 2 (pcy)
- - - Silica Fume (8%) 72
- -
Water (pcy) 276.4 263.2 338.4 252 263.2 263.2 Fine Aggregate
(pcy) 1,105 1,080 990 1,000 1,043 1,061
Coarse Aggregate (pcy)
1,841 1,750 1,647 1,670 1,750 1,750
Calcium Nitrite (oz)
- - - - - -
Air Entrainer (oz)
3.0 4.0 4.0 6.8 5.6 5.6
Water Reducer (oz)
18.3 24.4 24.4 29.3 24.4 24.4
Super Plasticizer (oz)
20.2 29.7 17.7 180 37.6 45.1
(a) Fly-Ash (F), Classified Fly-Ash (CF) and Silica Fume (SF).
48
Table 3-2. Continued. Mixture Name(a)
Materials 35_752 _8SF
35_752_8SF_20F
35_752 _10M
35_752_10M _20F
35_752 _50Slag
35_752 _4.5CN
Casting Date 1/28/04 1/29/04 2/4/04 2/5/04 2/17/04 3/9/04 W/C 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 Cement (pcy) 691.8 541.4 676.8 526.4 376 752 Pozzolan 1
(pcy) - Fly-Ash
(20%) 150.4
- Fly-Ash (20%) 150.4
- -
Pozzolan 2 (pcy)
SF(a) (8%) 60.2
SF(a) (8%) 60.2
M(a) (10%)
75.2
M(a) (10%)
75.2
Slag (50%)
376
-
Water (pcy) 263.2 263.2 263.2 263.2 263.2 229.5
Fine Aggregate (pcy)
1,058 1,021 1,051 1,037 1,053 1,030
Coarse Aggregate (pcy)
1,750 1,750 1,750 1,729 1,750 1,703
Calcium Nitrite (oz)
- - - - - 576
Air Entrainer (oz)
5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 7.5
Water Reducer (oz)
24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4
Super Plasticizer (oz)
37.6 45.1 90.2 136.9 33.8 33.8
(a) Calicium Nitrite (CN), Fly-Ash (F), Silica Fume (SF) and Metakaolin (M). Table 3-3. Standard Method for Casting and Vibrating Concrete Cylinders (AASHTO T23). Cylinder
Diameter (in) Number of
Layers Number of Vibrator
Insertions per Layer Approximate Depth of Layer 4 2 1 ½ depth of specimen 6 2 2 ½ depth of specimen 9 2 4 ½ depth of specimen
49
Table 3-4. Specified Compressive Strength of FDOT Concrete Classes.
FDOT Concrete Classes Design Compressive Strength (psi) Class I 3,000 Class I Special 3,000 Class II 3,400 Class II Bridge Deck 4,500 Class III 5,000 Class III Seal 3,000 Class IV 5,500 Class IV Drill Shaft 4,000 Class V 6,500 Class V Special 6,000 Class VI 8,500 Table 3-5. Field Mixture Designs.
Mixture Name(a), FDOT Concrete Classes and Geographic Location
45_570 29_450
_20F 33_658
_18F 34_686
_18F 30_673
_20F 28_800
_20F 29_770
_18F Class II Class II Class V Class V Class V Class VI Class VI
Materials South
FL North
FL South FL Central
FL North
FL Central
FL North FL Casting Date 8/11/03 7/11/03 8/12/03 7/18/03 7/9/03 7/17/03 7/10/03 W/C 0.45 0.29 0.33 0.34 0.30 0.28 0.29 Cement(pcy) 569.7 450 657.4 686 673 800 770 Pozzolan 1
(pcy) - Fly-Ash
(20%) 115
Fly-Ash (18%)
150
Fly-Ash (18%)
154
Fly-Ash (20%)
169
Fly-Ash (20%)
200
Fly-Ash (18%)
165 Water (pcy) 254.5 162.3 269.7 288 251.9 280 267.5 Fine
Aggregate (pcy)
1,434 1,137 1,048 935 973.5 868 727.5
Coarse Aggregate (pcy)
1,655 1,918 1,724 1,720 1,914 1,650 1,918
Air Entrainer (oz)
0.3 2.0 1.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 5.0
Water Reducer (oz)
45.6 22 8.0 17 40 16 47
Super Plasticizer (oz)
- - 70.0 55.0 110 52 110
(a) Fly-Ash (F).
50
Table 3-6. Field Mixture Material Sources. Source(a)
Materials 45_570 29_450_20F 33_658_18F 34_686_18F Portland
Cement RINKER
Miami Type II
Southdown Brooksville Type II
RINKER Monjos Type I
PENNSUCO Type II
Fly-Ash - BORAL Plant Daniel Class F
BORAL BOWEN Class F
ISG Fernandine Beach, FL Class F
Water Miami, FL St. George Island, FL
West Palm Beach, FL
Jacksonville, FL
Fine Aggregate
Silica Sand Silica Sand Silica Sand Silica Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Crushed Limestone
Crushed Granite Crushed Limestone
Crushed Limestone
Air Entrainer W.R. GRACE DAREX
Master Builders MBAE-90
Master Builders MBAE-90
Master Builders MBVR-S
Water Reducer
W.R. GRACE WRDA 60
Master Builders POZZ 300R
Master Builders POZZ 961R
Master Builders POZZ 100XR
Super Plasticizer
- - Master Builders POZZ 400N
Master Builders RHEO 1,000
(a) Fly-Ash (F). Table 3-6. Continued.
Source(a) Materials 30_673_20F 28_800_20F 29_770_18F Portland Cement CEMEX Type II PENNSUCO Type II CEMEX Type II
Fly-Ash BORAL Plant Daniel Class F
ISG Fernandine Beach, FL Class F
BORAL Plant Daniel Class F
Water St. George Island, FL Jacksonville, FL St. George Island, FL
Fine Aggregate Silica Sand Silica Sand Silica Sand
Coarse Aggregate Crushed Granite Crushed Limestone Crushed Granite
Air Entrainer Master Builders MBAE-90
Master Builders MBVR-S
Master Builders MBAE-90
Water Reducer Master Builders POZZ 300R
Master Builders POZZ 100XR
Master Builders POZZ 300R
Super Plasticizer Master Builders RHEO 1,000
Master Builders 3,000FC
Master Builders RHEO 1,000
(a) Fly-Ash (F).
51
Table 3-7. Locations of Field Mixtures.
FDOT District
Mixture Name(a)
Concrete Class
Location of the Concrete Casting
Location and Contact Information of the Concrete Supplier Plant
45_570 Class II Interstate I-95 at West Palm Beach, FL.
RINKER MATERIALS CORP. 1501 Belvedere Road. Belle Glade West Palm Beach, FL 32406 Phone: (561) 833-5555 FDOT Plant No. 93-104
DISTRICT 4
33_658 _18F
Class V At the Plant S. EASTERN PRESTRESS CONCRETE INC. West Palm Beach, FL 33416 P.O. BOX 15043 Phone: (561) 793-1177 FDOT Plant No. 93-101
34_686 _18F
Class V DISTRICT 2
28_800 _20F
Class VI
At the Plant GATE CONCRETE PRODUCTS 402 Hecksher Drive Jacksonville, FL 32226 Phone: (904) 757-0860 FDOT Plant No. 72-055
29_450 _20F
Class II At the Plant
30_673 _20F
Class V
DISTRICT 3
29_770 _18F
Class VI
St. George Island Bridge Construction Site
COUCH CONCRETE 60 Otterslide Rd. Eastpoint, FL 32328 Phone: (850) 670-5512 FDOT Plant No. 49-479
(a) Fly-Ash (F).
52
Table 3-8. FDOT Cored Bridge Structures for the Investigation.
Bridge Name Abbr. County
(District) Location Bridge # Project # Year Built
Hurricane Pass HPB Lee (D1) SR-865 San Carlos Blvd
120089 12004-3506
1980/91(a)
Broadway Replacement East Bound
BRB Volusia (D5)
US-92 E International Speedway Blvd.
790187 79080-3544
2001
Seabreeze West Bound
SWB Volusia (D5)
SR-430 790174 79220-3510
1997
Granada GRB Volusia (D5)
SR-40 Granada Blvd.
790132 79150-3515
1983/97(a)
Turkey Creek TCB Brevard (D5)
US-1 700203 70010-3529
1999
New Roosevelt NRB Martin (D4) US-1/SR-5 890152 -(b) 1997
(a) Built year/Modified year (b) Unknown Information
53
Table 3-9. FDOT Cored Bridge Element Mixture Designs. Bridge Name Abbreviation HPB BRB SWB GRB TCB NRB
Class V Class V Class V Class V
Special Class V
Special Class (a)
Materials Lee (D1) Volusia
(D5) Volusia
(D5) Volusia
(D5) Brevard
(D5) Martin
(D4) FDOT
Mixture # 3514 05-M2028 05-0446 05-0426 07-M0223B -(a)
W/C 0.35 0.33 0.35 0.35 0.33 -(a) Cement(pcy) 617 605 595 618 785 -(a)
Pozzolan 1 (pcy)
Fly-Ash (19.5%)
135
Fly-Ash (19.5%)
168
Fly-Ash (18%)
145
Fly-Ash (18%)
150
Fly-Ash (18%)
192
-(a)
Pozzolan 2 (pcy)
SF(b) (10.3%)
87
SF(b) (10.3%)
89
SF(b) (7.8%)
63
SF(b) (8.3%)
70
SF(b) (8.1%)
86
-(a)
Water (pcy) 263 219 271.6 292 355 -(a)
Fine Aggregate (pcy)
1,111 912 1,055 1,314 1,281 -(a)
Coarse Aggregate (pcy)
1,616 1,925 1,784 1,475 2,286 -(a)
Air Entrainer (oz)
7 8.4 10 6.8 9.2 -(a)
Water Reducer (oz)
30.85 42 17.9 30.9 31.4 -(a)
Super Plasticizer (oz)
56 134 95.2 185.4 98.1 -(a)
(a) Unknown Information (b) Silica Fume
54
Table 3-10. FDOT Cored Bridge Element Mixture Material Sources. Bridge Name Abbreviation
Materials HPB BRB SWB Portland
Cement Florida Mining &
Materials AASHTO M-85 Type II
Pennsuco Tarmac AASHTO M-85 Type II
BROCO (Brooksville) AASHTO M-85 Type II
Fly-Ash Florida Mining & Materials Class F
Boral Bowen Class F Florida Mining & Materials Class F
Silica Fume W.R. GRACE DARACEM 10,000
Master Builders MB-SF 110
W.R. GRACE DARACEM 10,000D
Water Port Manatee, FL Dayton Beach, FL Orlando, FL Fine
Aggregate Florida Crushed Stone
Silica Sand Florida Rock Ind. Silica
Sand Florida Rock Ind. Silica
Sand
Coarse Aggregate
Florida Crushed Stone Crushed Limestone
Martin Marietta Aggregates Crushed Granite
Martin Marietta Aggregates Crushed Granite
Air Entrainer W.R. GRACE Daravair 79
Master Builders MBAE 90
W.R. GRACE DAREX
Water Reducer W.R. GRACE WRDA Master Builders POZZ.200N
W.R. GRACE WRDA 64
Super Plasticizer
W.R. GRACE WRDA 19
Master Builders RHEO 1,000
W.R. GRACE DARACEM 100
55
Table 3-10. Continued. Bridge Name Abbreviation
Materials GRB TCB NRB Portland
Cement BROCO (Brooksville) AASHTO M-85 Type II
BROCO (Brooksville) AASHTO M-85 Type II
-(a)
Fly-Ash MONEX Crystal River Class F
Florida Fly Ash Class F -(a)
Silica Fume Master Builders RHEOMAC SF 100
W.R. GRACE DARACEM 10,000D
-(a)
Water West Palm Beach, FL Tampa, FL -(a)
Fine Aggregate
Florida Rock (Marison) Silica Sand
Vulca/ICA Silica Sand -(a)
Coarse Aggregate
Martin Marietta Aggregates Crushed Granite
Florida Crushed Stone Crushed Limestone
-(a)
Air Entrainer Master Builders MBVR-S W.R. GRACE Daravair 79 -(a)
Water Reducer Master Builders LL961R W.R. GRACE WRDA -(a)
Super Plasticizer
Master Builders RHEO 1,000
W.R. GRACE WRDA 19 -(a)
(a) Unknown Information
56
Table 3-11. 28-Day RCP Test Data from Concrete Mixture Designs of the Cored Samples. Bridge Name 28-Day RCP (Coulombs) Hurricane Pass -(a) Broadway Replacement East Bound 952 Seabreeze West Bound 700 Granada 538 Turkey Creek -(a) New Roosevelt -(a) (a) Data unavailable
57
Table 3-12. Summary of Cores Extracted and Associated Properties.
Bridge Abbr.
Lab. #
Date Cored
Structural Element Type(a)
Bent #(b)
Pier #(b)
Struct. Cored Side
Elevation Below HTL (in)
Elevation Above OTL (in)
5016 2-1-06 Pile PC 3 1 NW 3 3
5017 2-1-06 Pile PC 7 1 NW 6 0
HPB
5018 2-1-06 Pile PC 6 1 NW 6 0
5054 3-2-06 Column CIP 11 1 SW 12 0 BRB
5081 5-3-06 Column CIP 7 1 NE 4 8
5082 5-3-06 Column CIP 3 1 NE 8 8 SWB
5083 5-3-06 Column CIP 7 1 SW 5 10
GRB 5084 5-3-06 Crashwall CIP 9 1 NW 6 8
5078 5-24-06 Pile PC 3 15 NE 4 10
5079 5-24-06 Pile PC 4 15 NE 9 6
TCB
5080 5-24-06 Pile PC 5 15 NE 9 6
5075 6-1-06 Pile Cap CIP 8 1 S 7 6
5076 6-1-06 Pile Cap CIP 10 1 S 6 7
NRB
5077 6-1-06 Pile Cap CIP 7 1 S 6 7
(a) CIP: Cast in Place and PC: Pretensioned Concrete. (b) Bent# and Pier# were labeled in ascendant number from North to South or West to East direction depending on the bridge location. The Bent# 1 is considered as the bridge abutment.
58
Figure 3-1. Air Curing of Cast Concrete Specimens.
Figure 3-2. Casting of Field Mixture Specimens.
Figure 3-3. Field Samples Curing during transport to Laboratory.
59
St. George IslandCPR15CPR18CPR21
JacksonvilleCPR17CPR20
West Palm BeachCPR13CPR16
Figure 3-4. FDOT District Map with Field Mixture Locations.
Figure 3-5. Hurricane Pass Bridge (HPB) General Span View.
60
Figure 3-6. Hurricane Pass Bridge (HPB) Substructure Elements.
Figure 3-7. Broadway Replacement East Bound Bridge (BRB) General Span View.
Figure 3-8. Broadway Replacement East Bound Bridge (BRB) Substructure Elements.
61
Figure 3-9. Seabreeze West Bound Bridge (SWB) General Span View.
Figure 3-10. Seabreeze West Bound Bridge (SWB) Substructure Elements.
Figure 3-11. Granada Bridge (GRB) General Span View.
62
A B Figure 3-12. Granada Bridge (GRB) Substructure Elements. A) Pier Elements, B) Barge
Crashwall.
Figure 3-13. Turkey Creek Bridge (TCB) General Span View.
Figure 3-14. Turkey Creek Bridge (TCB) Substructure Elements.
63
Figure 3-15. New Roosevelt (NRB) General Span View.
Figure 3-16. New Roosevelt (NRB) Substructure Elements.
High Tide Line (HTL)
Organic Tide Line (OTL)
Figure 3-17. Cored Element Location Defined by the Water Tide Region between High Tine
Line (HTL) and the Organic Tide Line (OTL). Sample from Broadway Replacement East Bound Bridge (BRB) (East Bound) BENT 11, PIER 1.
64
A B Figure 3-18. Bridge Coring Process. A) Locating Reinforcing Steel, B) Locating Drill for
Coring.
A B Figure 3-19. Obtaining Cored Sample. A) Extracting Drilled Core, B) Location of the Extracted
Core that Reached Prestressing Strand.
65
A B Figure 3-20. Repairing Structural Cored Member. A) Patching Cored Opening B) Finished Pier
Member.
66
CHAPTER 4 TEST PROCEDURES
Laboratory and Field Concrete Sample Matrix
A total of 988 samples from 19 separate mixtures were cast for testing. The concrete
mixtures were divided into two groups. Twelve were mixed and formed at the FDOT State
Materials Office (SMO) in Gainesville. The remaining 7 mixtures were obtained at various field
sites around the state and brought back to the SMO for storage and eventual testing (Table 4-1).
The cast samples were primarily 4-inch (102-mm) diameter by 8-inch (204-mm) long cylinders.
Chloride Ion Content Analysis
Chloride ions are typically present in concrete in two forms, soluble chlorides in the
concrete pore water and chemically bound chlorides. There are several laboratory methods to
estimate these amounts of chloride in the concrete structure. The FDOT standardized test method
(FM 5-516) to determine low-levels of chloride in concrete and raw materials was selected for
the analysis. This wet chemical analysis method also known as acid-soluble method determines
the sum of all chemically bound and free chlorides ions from powdered concrete samples.
Diffusion Test
Bulk Diffusion Test
The Bulk Diffusion Test was conducted using the NT BUILD 443 (NT BUILD 443 1995)
test procedure. Samples were 4-inch (102-mm) diameter by 8-inch (204-mm) long, with three
samples cast for each mixture. The samples were kept in a moist room with a sustained 100%
humidity for 28 days, removed from the moist conditions, and sliced on a water-cooled diamond
saw into two halves (Figure 4-1). The cut specimens were immersed in a saturated Ca(OH)2
solution in an environment with an average temperature of 73oF (23oC). The samples were
weighed daily in a surface-dry condition until their mass did not change by more than 0.1
67
percent. The specimens were then sealed with Sikadur 32 Hi-Mod epoxy (on all surfaces except
the saw-cut face) and left to cure for 24-hours. The sealed samples were then returned to the
Ca(OH)2 tanks to repeat the above saturation process by weight control. The samples were then
immersed under surface-dry conditions in salt solution (16.5 percent of sodium chloride solution
mixed with deionized water) in tanks with tight closing lids (Figure 2-3 and Figure 4-2). The
tanks were shaken once a week and the NaCl solution was changed every 5 weeks. The original
procedure called for at least 35 days of exposure before the chloride penetration analysis was to
be conducted. Moreover, it suggests to sample between 0.04-inch to 0.08-inch (1-mm to 2-mm)
increments by powder grinding the profiles for this exposure time and type of high quality
concrete. With the equipment available for the use on the project, an exposure of 35 days is
insufficient to achieve a measurable chloride profile. A coarser chloride sampling evaluation was
implemented; 0.25-inch (6.5-mm) increments were tested on 1 and 3 years old samples. Finally,
the respective acid-soluble chloride content of the profile samples at varying depths were
obtained in accordance with the FDOT standard test method FM 5-516. The initial chloride
background levels for each of the concrete mixes were also determined from the extra unexposed
samples.
Electrical Conductivity Tests
Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCP)
The RCP test was conducted in conformance with AASHTO T277 and ASTM C1202. The
specimen dimensions were 4-inch (102-mm) diameter by 8-inch (204-mm) long. All samples
were kept in a moist room with a sustained 100% humidity until testing day. RCP tests were
conducted at ages of 14, 28, 56, 91, 182 and 364 days, with three samples tested at each age.
The procedure calls for two days of specimen preparation. On the first day, the samples
were removed from the moist room to be cut on a water-cooled diamond saw. A ¼-inch (6.4-
68
mm) slice was first removed to dress the top edge of the sample (Figure 4-3), and then the 2-inch
(51-mm) thick sample required for the test was sliced (Figure 4-4). The sides of the specimens
were roughened (Figure 4-4) followed by application of Sikadur 32 Hi-Mod epoxy to seal the
specimen (Figure 4-5).
The second day of preparation began with the desiccation process to water-saturate the
samples. The specimens were placed in a desiccation chamber connected to a vacuum pump
capable of maintaining a pressure of less than 1 mm Hg (133 Pa). The vacuum was maintained
for three hours to remove the pore solution from the samples. The container was then filled with
boiled de-aerated water until the samples were totally submerged and the pump was left running
for an additional hour (Figure 4-6). The desiccation chamber was return to atmospheric pressure
and the samples were left submerged for 18 hours, plus or minus 2 hours.
After the samples were removed from the desiccation chamber, each sample was placed
into their acrylic cells and sealed with silicone (Figure 2-4 and Figure 4-7). The upper surface of
the specimen was left in contact with the 3.0 percent NaCl solution (this side of the cell was
connected to the negative terminal of the power supply) and the bottom face was exposed to the
0.3 N NaOH solution (this side of the cell was connected to the positive terminal of the power
supply). The test was left running for 6 hours with a constant 60-volt potential applied to the cell.
A data logging system recorded the temperature of the anolyte solution, charge passed, and
current every 5 minutes. Furthermore, it calculated the cumulative charge passed during the test
in coulombs by determining the area under the curve of current (amperes) versus time (seconds).
The three total readings from each sample were averaged to obtain a representative final result
for the specimens set.
69
Surface Resistivity Test
The Surface Resistivity test was conducted conforming to Florida Method of Test
designation FM 5-578. The Surface Resistivity was measured on 4-inch (102-mm) diameter by
8-inch (204-mm) long concrete cylinders. To evaluate the effect of curing, two sets of three
samples each were tested. The first set was kept in a moist room with a sustained 100%
humidity, and the other in saturated Ca(OH)2 solution (dissolved in tap water) tanks. Due to its
nondestructive test nature, the test was performed to a wider amount of ages than the other
electrical tests. For the purpose of this project, the samples were tested at 14, 28, 56, 91, 182,
364, 454 and 544 days. Additionally, these samples are being monitoring until no further
changes in the surface resistivity reading is observed as part of another research project.
Commercial four-probe Wenner array equipment was utilized for resistivity measurements. The
model used had wooden plugs in the end of the probes that were pre-wetted with a contact
medium to improve the electrical transfer with the concrete surface (Figure 4-8). The inter-probe
spacing was set to 1.5-inch (38-mm) for all measurements.
On the day of testing the samples were removed from their curing environment and the
readings were taken under surface wet condition. Readings were then taken with the instrument
placed such that the probes were aligned with the cylinder axis. Four separate readings were
taken around the circumference of the cylinder at 90-degrees increments (0o, 90o, 180o and 270o).
This process was repeated once again, in order to get a total of eight readings that were then
averaged. This minimized possible interference due to the presence of a single aggregate particle
obstructing the readings (Chini, Muszynski and Hicks 2003).
Bridge Core Sample Chloride Ion Content Analysis
The core samples obtained from the bridge substructures were profiled at varying depths to
obtain their respective acid-soluble chloride content in accordance with the FDOT standard test
70
method FM 5-516 (APPENDIX D). The core surface was first cleaned to remove barnacles or
other debris. Two methods were used to obtain the respective profile samples. The top 0.48-inch
(12-mm) was profiled using a milling machine. Powder samples were taken at increments of
0.08-inch (2-mm) (Figure 4-9). Subsequent profiles were obtained by cutting the sample into
0.25-inch (6.5-mm) thick slices using a water-cooled diamond saw. The core profiling scheme
summary is presented in Table 4-2. The sample obtained from the two profiling methods was
pulverized and placed in plastic bags until the chloride content testing was executed. The initial
chloride background levels of cored samples were determined from the deepest section of the
specimens (APPENDIX D), assuming that chlorides have not yet reached this depth.
71
Table 4-1. Concrete Permeability Research Sample Matrix for Laboratory Mixtures. Total Number of Samples per Test (4”x8” Cylinders)
Mixture Name
Strength (ASTM C39)
RCP (AASHTO T277)
Surface Resistivity (FM 5-578)
Bulk Diffusion (NTBuild 443)
Extra Cylinders
49_564 18 18 6 3 7 35_752 18 18 6 3 7 45_752 18 18 6 3 7 28_900_8SF_20F 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_20F 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_12CF 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_8SF 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_8SF_20F 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_10M 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_10M_20F 18 18 6 3 7 35_752_50Slag 18 18 6 3 7
Lab. Mixes
35_752_4.5CN 18 18 6 3 7 45_570 18 18 6 3 7 29_450_20F 18 18 6 3 7 33_658_18F 18 18 6 3 7 34_686_18F 18 18 6 3 7 30_673_20F 18 18 6 3 7 28_800_20F 18 18 6 3 7
Field Mixes
29_770_18F 18 18 6 3 7 Total 342 342 114 57 133 Table 4-2. Bridge Core Samples Profiling Scheme. Core Sample
Identification Profile Penetration
(mm) Profiling Method
A 0 – 2 Milling B 2 – 4 Milling C 4 – 6 Milling D 6 – 8 Milling E 8 – 10 Milling F 10 – 12 Milling G 12 – 18.35 Slicing H 18.35 – 24.70 Slicing I 24.70 – 31.05 Slicing J 31.05 – 37.40 Slicing
72
Figure 4-1. Cutting Bulk Diffusion Samples into Two Halves.
Figure 4-2. Bulk Diffusion Saline Solution Exposure.
73
Figure 4-3. RCP test top surface removal of the sample preparation procedure.
A B Figure 4-4. RCP Sample Preparation: A) Cutting of the 2-inch Sample for the Test and B)
Preconditioning RCP Sample Surfaces to Receive Epoxy.
74
Figure 4-5. RCP Sample Sealed with Epoxy.
A B Figure 4-6. RCP Sample Preconditioning Procedure: A) Reduction of Absolute Pressure and B)
Sample Desiccation
75
Figure 4-7. RCP Test Set-up.
Figure 4-8. Surface Resistivity Measurements.
76
A B Figure 4-9. Profile Grinding Using a Milling Machine. A) Milling Machine Set Up and B)
Milling Process.
77
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Fresh Properties
Several quality control procedures were executed during mixing and casting of the test
samples for the laboratory and field mixtures. The results obtained from the standard testing
procedures for slump (ASTM C 143), air content (ASTM C 173), concrete temperature (ASTM
C 1064), air temperature and unit weight of the concrete (ASTM C 138) are included in Table
5-1. Due to natural variability of concrete workability, a consistent concrete slump from mixture
to mixture is difficult to obtain. The laboratory concrete mixture slump measurements ranged
between 2.25 to 9.75-inch (57 to 248-mm) and the field mixtures between 0.5 to 7.75-inch (13 to
197-mm). The laboratory mixture unit weight measurements presented a coefficient of variation
of 1.5% and the field mixtures vary by 2.3%. This indicates that there were no large variations in
entrapped air or aggregate volume proportions among mixtures. The air content for all batches
was within the target range of 1.0 to 6.0%. The laboratory concrete mixture air contents range
from 1.25% to 6.0% and the field mixtures from 1.5% to 4%.
Mechanical Properties
The compressive strength of each mixture was evaluated in accordance with ASTM C39.
Though compressive strength is not a concrete permeability indicator, it represents a helpful tool
for checking the design compressive strength. Therefore, the compressive strength changes
caused by the mixture proportions and different added pozzolan can then be used as quality
indicators of the corrected preparation of the cast mixtures. Moreover, the strength trend of
change by time can be used as an indirect comparative reference to the electrical conductivity
results tested at the same age. The electrical conductivity of water saturated concrete depends on
78
part on its pore structure; as the pore structure of a concrete samples is reduced, the electrical
conductivity will decrease and the concrete strength will increase.
Compressive strengths were tested after 14, 28, 56, 91,182 and 364 days of continuous
moist curing for all the concrete mixtures. Detailed results are given in APPENDIX B.
Maximum values of strength were achieved in mixtures with the lowest water-cementitious
ratios. The effect on the mixtures by the addition of fly ash resulted in a slower gain of strength
during the early ages of hydration. During the first 56 days after casting, compressive strength of
fly ash mixes mixture was significantly less than those of the control mixture (Figure 5-1). This
lower early strength development is due to the low reactivity of the mineral admixture fly ash
(Mindess,Young and Darwin 2002). Strength tests conducted between 56 and 180 days showed
that the fly ash mixtures gained a compressive strength comparably equal to those of the control
mixture. Finally at 364 days after casting, the fly ash mixtures developed higher compressive
strength exceeding those of the control mixture.
The effect on the mixtures by the addition of the highly reactive pozzolan silica fume
contributed to the early development of compressive strength. During the first 14 days after
casting, compressive strengths of silica fume mixtures were less than those of the control mixture
(Figure 5-1). On the other hand, strength tests conducted between 28 and 182 days showed that
the silica fume mixtures had higher compressive strengths than those of the control mixture.
Finally at 364 days after casting, the effect of silica fume was stabilized and the compressive
strength was comparably equal to those of the control mixture.
The effect on the mixture by the addition of the pozzolan metakaoline contributed to the
early development of compressive strength. This beneficial effect was sustained until 364-days
after casting (Figure 5-1). On the other hand, the addition of calcium nitrite reduced the concrete
79
compressive strengths compared to the control mixture by about 30 percent for all the testing
days. Similar concrete strength behavior was reported by previous researches (Berke 1987;
Kondratova, Montes and Bremner 2003). They reported that the calcium nitrite can reduce
concrete compressive strength. However, other findings by Ann et al. (2005) contradict this
conclusion. They found that the calcium nitrite addition enhanced the concrete strength at early
ages compared to a control mixture.
Finally, Figure 5-2 shows some of the field mixtures compressive strength compared to the
laboratory control mixture. The compressive strengths are reduced compared to the control as the
water-cementitious ratio is increased or the amount of cementitious is reduced. Conversely, a
noticeable increase in strength was observed on the field mixture 28_ 800_20F with lower water-
cementitious ratio and higher amount of cementitious than the laboratory control mixture
(35_752).
Long-Term Chloride Penetration Procedures
The Nordtest Bulk Diffusion (NTBuild 443) test results after a 1 and 3 years of exposure
period were used as a benchmark to evaluate the conductivity tests. After their exposure period,
each of the samples were profiled and tested using the FDOT standard test method FM5-516 to
obtain their acid-soluble chloride ion content at varying depths.
The Bulk Diffusion procedure represents the most common test method of determining
chloride diffusion coefficients for concrete specimens. This procedure is believed to simulate a
“diffusion only” mechanism (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001). The saturation of the samples,
previous exposure to the chloride solution, eliminates the contribution by the absorption
mechanism. Furthermore, the wicking effect is also eliminated with the sealing of all specimen
faces except the one exposed to the NaCl solution. The diffusion coefficients were determined by
fitting the data obtained in the chloride profiles analysis to Fick’s Diffusion Second Law
80
equation. The measured chloride contents at varying depths were fitted to Fick’s diffusion
equation by means of a non-linear regression analysis in accordance with the method of least
square fit. The computerized mathematical tools of the program MathCad were used to fit the
data to the non-linear regressions. Table 5-2 to Table 5-5 show the obtained chloride diffusion
coefficients and surface concentration for 1 and 3 years of exposure. Moreover, chloride profiles
and curve fitting results for each concrete mixture are summarized in APPENDIX C.
The mixture proportions affect directly the rate of chloride diffusion into concrete. Several
factors such as the water-cementitious ratios and the types and amounts of cementitious materials
used for the mixture will change the rate of chloride diffusion. Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4 show a
comparison of the obtained chloride diffusion coefficients for 1 and 3 years of exposure for the
entire set of mixtures.
Table 5-6 shows the relative decrease in diffusion from 1 to 3-years of exposure.
Moreover, the effects on the diffusion coefficient by the addition of different pozzolans and
corrosion inhibitor are compared in Table 5-7. Mixtures having the same water-cementitious
ratios, cementitious contents and different pozzolan combinations and corrosion inhibitor were
compared. The chosen mixtures were cast under laboratory conditions with the same source of
materials. Mixture 35_752 that did not contain pozzolan was selected as the control to make the
comparisons. The changes in diffusion from 1 to 3-years compared to the control mixture are
also presented graphically in Figure 5-5. The results show that the addition of metakaolin
(35_752_10M) decreases the chloride diffusion compared to the control mixture by about 70
percent for the 1 and 3 years of exposure results. Moreover, the addition of silica fume
(35_752_8SF), ground blast furnace slag (35_752_50Slag) and ternary blends of fly-ash with
metakaolin (35_752_10M_20F) or silica fume (35_752_8SF_20F) decreases the chloride
81
diffusion approximately 50 percent for the 1 and 3 years of exposure results. The chloride
diffusion for samples containing fly-ash (35_752_20F) and classified fly-ash (35_752_12CF) did
not improve for samples exposed for a year. However, they improved for the longer exposure
period of 3 year. These could be related to the slow pozzolanic reaction of the mineral admixture
fly ash. Finally, the addition of calcium nitrite (35_752_4.5CN) did not improve the concrete
diffusion coefficient. The addition of calcium nitrite increased the chloride diffusion compared to
the control mixture by about 60 percent for the 1 year of exposure results and 133 percent for the
longer exposure of 3 years. Similar chloride diffusion behaviors were reported by previous
researches (Berke 1987; Ma, Li and Peng 1998; Kondratova, Montes and Bremner 2003). They
reported that the calcium nitrite tends to increase concrete chloride permeability values. Ma, Li
and Peng (1998) found that the addition of calcium nitrite influences the hydration process of
cement paste. It appears that calcium nitrite has the function of accelerating and stabilizing the
formation of the crystal phase of calcium hydroxide. This leads to an increase in the micropore
diameter in the hardened cement paste and thus to an increase in chloride permeability compared
to concrete without inhibitor.
Comparison of Conductivity and Long-Term Diffusion Tests
Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCP)
The results of the Rapid Chloride Permeability tests (RCP) (AASHTO T277) at ages 14,
28, 56, 91, 182 and 364 days were plotted with their respective 1 and 3 years Bulk Diffusion. It
was found that a power regression provided the best representation of the trends (APPENDIX F).
Other researchers (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001) have also found this to be true in their
work. As an example, Figure 5-6 shows the 28-day and 91-day RCP results against the 1-year
Bulk Diffusion results for both the laboratory and field samples. Similarly, Figure 5-7 shows the
same RCP results plotted against the 3-year Bulk Diffusion results.
82
Previous research has shown that the RCP test method presents some limitations when
applied to concrete modified with chemical admixtures as corrosion inhibitors (Shi, Stegemenn
and Caldwell 1998). Concrete modified with a corrosion inhibitor such as calcium nitrite exhibits
a higher coulomb value than the same concrete without the corrosion inhibitor when tested with
the RCP test. Yet long-term chloride ponding tests have indicated that concrete with calcium
nitrite is at least as resistant to chloride ion penetration as the control mixture. Conversely, the
RCP results compared with the 1 and 3 years Bulk Diffusion results tend to follow the same
trend as the other concrete mixtures. The calcium nitrite effect, however, is represented by only
one mixture on the entire specimen population. Consequently, there is not enough information to
draw a solid final conclusion from the available data results. Therefore, the concrete mixture
containing calcium nitrite (35_752_4.5CN) was not included on the general correlations with
long-term tests in order to establish a uniform level of comparison between all the electrical tests.
General levels of agreement (R2) to references are presented in Table 5-8. Moreover, detailed
graphs with their least-squares line-of-best fit for the complete set of data are presented in
APPENDIX G.
Surface Resistivity
The electrical conductivity derived from the surface resistivity test was also compared to
their respective 1 and 3 years Bulk Diffusion. The surface resistivity test was conducted using
two methods of curing, one at 100% humidity (moist cured) and the other in a saturated Ca(OH)2
solution (lime cured). Surface resistivity results from the two curing regimens at 14, 28, 56, 91,
182, 364, 455 and 546 days of age are compared to their respective diffusion test results. The
data were then fit with a curve to provide an empirical relationship between the short and long
term tests. Power function was selected because it provided the best fit with the relationship
between the two set of test results (APPENDIX F). Concrete modified with a corrosion inhibitor
83
as calcium nitrite may exhibit misleading results in electrical resistivity tests (Shi, Stegemenn
and Caldwell 1998). Consequently, these values were excluded from the curve fit. Figure 5-8 and
Figure 5-9 show detailed graphs of the test correlations with their respective derived least-square
line-of-best fit.
The surface resistivity correlation coefficients (R2) for the two curing regimens are
compared in Figure 5-12 and Figure 5-13. The figures show the R2 results for the Bulk Diffusion
correlation for the two exposure periods, respectively. The comparison between the two curing
procedures shows little difference. A relative gain in correlation, however, was observed for the
moist cured regimen at 14 days of age. The difference in the number of samples tested at that age
(Table 5-9) might explain the relative increase in the correlation. Fewer samples were tested for
the moist cured regimen than for the lime cured specimens. Consequently, the probability of
fitting a set of data increases for fewer numbers of records. Therefore, it is concluded that either
of the methods will derive on equal surface resistivity behavior. General levels of agreement (R2)
to references for both curing methods are presented in Table 5-9. Moreover, detailed graphs with
their least-squares line-of-best fit for the complete set of data are presented in APPENDIX G.
Relating Electrical Tests and Bulk Diffusion
The standardized RCP test method, ASTM C1202, is commonly required on construction
project specifications for both precast and cast-in-place concrete. Pfeifer, McDonald and Krauss
(1994) indicate that the engineer or owner usually select an arbitrary limit of 1000 coulombs for
concrete elements under extremely aggressive environments. This RCP coulomb limit for 28-day
moist cured concrete is required by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) when
Class V or Class V Special concrete containing silica fume or metakaolin is specified (FDOT
346 2004). The typical application for this high performance concrete is piling to be installed in
salt water.
84
The commonly used 1000 coulomb limit at 28-day RCP test has been chosen based on a
scale reported in the standardized test procedure (Table 2-1). This scale presents a qualitative
method that relates the equivalent measured charge in coulombs to the chloride ion permeability
of the concrete. The original research program that derived the rating scale (Whiting 1981) was
based upon a reduced amount of single core concrete samples that did not include pozzolans or
corrosion inhibitors. The set of data results were linearly fitted (R2 of 0.83) and five qualitative
ranges of chloride permeability were defined based on the long-term chloride ponding test
AASHTO T259. These permeability ranges were selected by grouping concrete mixture with
similar AASHTO T259 and RCP results.
The applicability of the RCP has been considered extensively in the literature (Whiting
1981; Whiting 1988; Whiting and Dziedzic 1989; Ozyildirim and Halstead 1988; Scanlon and
Sherman 1996) with samples containing a wide variety of pozzolans and corrosion inhibitors.
They have demonstrated no consistent correlation between the RCP results and the rates of
chloride permeability presented in standard procedure. The electrical conductivity of the water
saturated concrete depends on part on the chemistry of pore solution. Changes in pore solution
chemistry generate considerable alterations in the electrical conductivity of the sample. These
variations can be produced by the presence of pozzolans or corrosion inhibitors that were not
included on the original research that developed the rating table. Therefore, this indicates that the
RCP test was never intended as a quantitative predictor of chloride permeability into any given
concrete (Pfeifer, McDonald and Krauss 1994). The test was designed as a quality control
procedure that should be calibrated with long-term tests. As stated in the scope of the RCP
standard method, the rapid test procedure is applicable to types of concrete in which correlations
have been established between this rapid test procedure and long-term chloride ponding tests.
85
It has been argued by the industry that a RCP limit of 1000 coulombs to categorize very
low chloride permeability concrete on a 28-day sample is unreasonably low. The original RCP
coulomb limits were derived from correlations between 90-day RCP samples and 90-day
AASHTO T259 ponding test. Therefore, the use of these restrictions on lower testing ages, as 28
days, represents a conservative approach to quality control. The electrical conductivity of
concrete decreases with time as the process of hydration takes place. This is particularly true of
fly ash or other slower reacting pozzolans. Conversely, silica fume is rather fast acting resulting
in low apparently age RCP values. Figure 5-15 shows these effects on the electrical conductivity
by the addition of fly ash and silica fume. Moreover, Figure 5-16 illustrates the changes on RCP
results for the complete set of mixtures. Results show a higher rate of RCP coulombs decrease
for the first 91 days of curing, followed by a relative stable flat trend in most of the cases.
Furthermore, the chloride ponding test used as a benchmark to derive the original RCP
coulomb limits, AASHTO T259, presents several limitations. Chloride profiles obtained from the
long-term chloride ponding test were analyzed using the total integral chloride method. This
method calculates the total quantity of chlorides that has penetrated the samples during the
exposure period of exposure. It is obtained by integrating the area under the chloride profile
curve from the surface of exposure to the point where the chloride background is reached (Figure
5-14). Previous research findings (Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001; Vivas, Hamilton and Boyd
2007) have indicated that this chloride content measurement method is not a good indicator of
diffusion of chlorides in concrete. The method only takes into consideration the total amount of
soluble chlorides for a particular depth. Significant information such as the shape of the chloride
penetration curve is not reflected in this result.
86
Diffusion mechanism is considered the principal mechanism that drives chloride ions into
the pore structure of concrete (Tuutti 1982; Stanish and Thomas 2003). However, the AASHTO
T259 test set up induces a combined effect of diffusion, adsorption and vapor conduction
(wicking) mechanisms. Previous research (McGrath and Hooton 1999) has suggested that the
relative importance of the absorption effect is overestimated by the AASHTO T259 test set up.
Hooton, Thomas and Stanish (2001) have indicated that the relative amounts of chloride ions
drawn into the concrete by the absorption effect compared to the amount entering by diffusion
will be greater when the test is run only for a short period of time compared to the relative
amounts during the lifetime of a structure. Moreover, they exposed that the wicking effect is also
overestimated by the test procedure. The actual structure humidity gradient will likely be less, at
least for part of the time, than the exposed during the test. Therefore, the use of a well-controlled
“diffusion only” ponding test as Bulk Diffusion test will improve the precision of the chloride
penetration profile and may more accurately reflect the extent of long-term penetration of
chloride into concrete than the AASHTO T259 test. Consequently, a method to relate the
equivalent measured charge in coulombs to the chloride ion permeability of the concrete based
on the Bulk Diffusion test is needed.
Curve fitting of the relationship between RCP or SR and the 1 and 3-year Bulk Diffusion
test results were previously presented. Figure 5-17 and Figure 5-18 shows the correlation
coefficients (R2) of those fits as a function of the time at which the respective RCP test was
conducted. The plots are for 1 and 3-year Bulk Diffusion results. The R2 values for both Bulk
Diffusion ages increase dramatically for approximately the first 91-days. The RCP R2 reaches
plateau at 91 days when compared to those of 1-year Bulk Diffusion. This is believed to be
related to the high variability on the different pozzolan internal reactions at early age concretes.
87
Concrete mixtures containing highly reactive pozzolans as silica fume will react faster than
mixtures containing slower reacting pozzolans as fly ash. However, as the concrete internal
hydration takes place, these reactions will be reduced. Consequently, the short-term test results
obtained from these more stable mixtures will correlate better to the long-term specimens. RCP
samples compared to those of 3-year Bulk Diffusion achieve a maximum R2 value at 1 year of
testing. R2 values from correlations of Surface Resistivity tests (Table 5-9) to the references were
also included in the comparison with similar results. Even duo the maximum R2 value for the 3-
year Bulk Diffusion results is reached at 1-year RCP, the 91-day R2 is considered also a
reasonable correlation level. Therefore based on the reduced variability reached at 91-days, it is
concluded that the earliest effective age at which the RCP and SR will correlate with the 1 or 3
year Bulk Diffusion test is 91 days. Furthermore, the relationship between the 91-day RCP
results and the BD tests can be used to derive a target Bulk Diffusion coefficient for Florida
concretes. This target is based on the 1000 coulomb requirement that is commonly used to
characterize durable concrete. The ultimate goal is to be able to predict a 1 or 3-year Bulk
Diffusion from a test conducted at 91-days. The diffusion coefficient related to a given coulomb
value can be obtained from the trend line equation of the test correlations as shown in Figure
5-19 and Figure 5-20. Table 5-10 shows a complete scale for categorizing 91 day RCP results
related to the chloride permeability measured by a 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion test.
Refinement of the Long-Term Diffusion Coefficient Prediction Using Monte Carlo Simulation
Closed form statistical solutions were used to develop the scale presented in the previous
section. 91-days was found to be the earliest effective testing age to predict the chloride diffusion
penetration of a 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion test when using either SR or RCP. The proposed
diffusion coefficients related to a given coulomb value were obtained from a fit of the available
88
experimental data (Figure 5-19 and Figure 5-20). Each of the data values used in the test
correlations was a product of an average of three experimental results. Some of these results had
high coefficient of variation with up to 15% on the RCP results (APPENDIX E) and 30% on the
Bulk Diffusion (Table 5-2 and Table 5-4).
To ensure that the variability in the data was accounted for appropriately Monte Carlo
simulation was conducted. This simulation was focused on obtain the respective diffusion
coefficient results related to the standard RCP limits. The available RCP data and Bulk Diffusion
test results at 1 and 3 years of chloride exposure were included in the analysis. Each of the Bulk
Diffusion coefficients and RCP test results were simulated with separate independent random
variables using a normal distribution. The parameters required to define the shape of the normal
distribution, mean and standard deviation, were calculated from the three available data points
from each set of mixture test results. A complete set of Bulk Diffusion and RCP results were
randomly generated from the different normal distribution models. In some of the cases due to
the high coefficient of variation of the variables, the RCP or Bulk Diffusion randomly generated
values resulted on negative values, which was incorrect. Therefore, these negative simulated
results were replaced with new positive random results. The respective best-fit-equation was then
calculated based on the power function model. The diffusion coefficients related to the standard
coulomb limit values were then obtained from the new trend line equation. This process was
repeated many times and different diffusion coefficient results for each RCP limits were
obtained. Finally, the average and standard deviation of the obtained group of diffusion results
were assembled in a histogram.
Figure 5-21 shows a schematic of the correlation process using the Monte Carlo
simulation. Initially 100 simulations were run and the average and standard deviation of each
89
group was recorded. The coefficient of variation (COV) of the obtained set of results for each of
the number of samples was then calculated (Figure 5-22 and Figure 5-23). To ensure a low COV
the selected number of interaction was increased from 100 to 50000 samples which reduced the
COV to less than 1%.
The average and standard deviation of the correlation coefficient (R2) obtained for each of
RCP and Surface Resistivity curve-fitting using the simulation (Table 5-11) are compared in
Figure 5-24 and Figure 5-25. The obtained results corroborated previous findings. The average
of RCP and Surface Resistivity trend of agreement reaches a maximum value on samples tested
at 91 days when compared to those of 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion. Therefore, it is concluded
that the most effective RCP and Surface Resistivity testing age to predict the chloride diffusion
penetration of a 1 or 3 year Bulk Diffusion test is 91 days. More realistic diffusion coefficients
associated with these test results can be derived. The average and standard deviation of the
chloride permeability measured by a 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion test related to 91 day RCP
results including the grade of variability from the experimental data is presented in Table 5-12.
90
Table 5-1. Fresh Concrete Properties.
Mixture Name Slump
(in)
Air Content(%)
Concrete Temperature (oF)
Air Temperature (oF)
Unit Weight (pcf)
49_564 7.5 3.5 76 72 140.62 35_752 3 2 79 72 144.62 45_752 9.75 2.5 80 75 140.40 28_900_8SF_20F 9 3 81 75 142.32 35_752_20F 2.25 1.5 80 72 144.32 35_752_12CF 6 4.5 80 73 140.52 35_752_8SF 3 2.5 76 72 143.72 35_752_8SF_20F 4 4.5 78 70 139.72 35_752_10M 5.5 4.5 76 78 145.22 35_752_10M_20F 8 1.25 80 80 144.02 35_752_50Slag 6 2 74 72 142.82
Lab. Mixes
35_752_4.5CN 9 6 76 72 140.49 45_570 0.5 4 94 81 140.49 29_450_20F 3 1.5 92 96 148.64 33_658_18F 7 3.5 88 98 145.01 34_686_18F 7 2 90 89 143.08 30_673_20F 6.5 1.7 96 99 148.77 28_800_20F 7.75 2.8 98 93 142.16
Field Mixes
29_770_18F 5.5 2 93 96 147.39
91
Table 5-2. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/sec)
Mixture Name Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Standard
Deviation
Coefficient of Variation (%)
49_564 22.451 16.607 17.347 18.801 3.182 17 35_752 4.050 4.433 4.863 4.449 0.407 9 45_752 10.645 9.738 9.440 9.941 0.627 6 28_900_8SF_20F 1.345 1.175 1.254 1.258 0.085 7 35_752_20F 4.222 5.255 5.948 5.142 0.869 17 35_752_12CF 5.374 4.637 4.378 4.796 0.516 11 35_752_8SF 2.299 2.255 1.656 2.070 0.360 17 35_752_8SF_20F 2.351 2.729 3.562 2.881 0.619 21 35_752_10M 0.877 1.206 1.232 1.105 0.198 18 35_752_10M_20F 2.251 2.425 2.587 2.421 0.168 7 35_752_50Slag 2.994 2.100 3.151 2.748 0.567 21 35_752_4.5CN 6.644 8.406 6.622 7.224 1.024 14 45_570 11.703 9.155 9.404 10.087 1.405 14 29_450_20F 6.306 4.452 4.656 5.138 1.017 20 33_658_18F 5.829 5.723 5.851 5.801 0.068 1 34_686_18F 3.027 5.729 4.526 4.427 1.354 31 30_673_20F 2.231 2.169 2.366 2.255 0.101 4 28_800_20F 3.330 2.490 1.662 2.494 0.834 33 29_770_18F 2.212 3.361 1.756 2.443 0.827 34
92
Table 5-3. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Surface Concentration. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Surface Concentration (lb/yd3)
Mixture Name Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Standard
Deviation
Coefficient of Variation (%)
49_564 34.385 39.102 35.500 36.329 2.465 7 35_752 46.835 49.390 45.930 47.385 1.794 4 45_752 47.345 51.026 49.637 49.336 1.859 4 28_900_8SF_20F 53.651 59.521 49.262 54.145 5.147 10 35_752_20F 46.474 47.442 44.192 46.036 1.669 4 35_752_12CF 54.147 60.405 60.744 58.432 3.715 6 35_752_8SF 54.787 55.418 60.326 56.843 3.032 5 35_752_8SF_20F 55.771 66.298 57.763 59.944 5.592 9 35_752_10M 71.946 62.979 78.792 71.239 7.930 11 35_752_10M_20F 57.641 47.788 54.601 53.343 5.045 9 35_752_50Slag 55.913 75.667 61.852 64.477 10.135 16 35_752_4.5CN 73.541 53.329 60.400 62.424 10.257 16 45_570 47.348 53.144 56.449 52.314 4.607 9 29_450_20F 59.443 67.260 63.426 63.376 3.909 6 33_658_18F 58.558 51.562 44.124 51.415 7.218 14 34_686_18F 30.835 27.014 26.301 28.050 2.438 9 30_673_20F 31.105 30.618 33.343 31.688 1.453 5 28_800_20F 25.791 28.249 28.176 27.405 1.398 5 29_770_18F 43.569 31.820 34.043 36.477 6.242 17
93
Table 5-4. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/sec)
Mixture Name Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Standard
Deviation
Coefficient of Variation (%)
49_564 29.829 25.367 24.146 26.448 2.991 11 35_752 5.371 4.383 5.034 4.929 0.502 10 45_752 9.706 8.962 13.232 10.633 2.281 21 28_900_8SF_20F 1.212 0.850 0.600 0.887 0.308 35 35_752_20F 2.160 2.240 2.224 2.208 0.042 2 35_752_12CF 3.806 3.711 3.606 3.708 0.100 3 35_752_8SF 1.796 2.126 1.951 1.958 0.165 8 35_752_8SF_20F 2.850 2.683 2.402 2.645 0.226 9 35_752_10M 1.601 1.227 1.392 1.407 0.187 13 35_752_10M_20F 2.168 2.108 2.172 2.149 0.036 2 35_752_50Slag 2.346 2.785 1.776 2.303 0.506 22 35_752_4.5CN 8.174 15.054 11.208 11.479 3.448 30 45_570 31.792 26.808 17.648 25.416 7.174 28 29_450_20F 10.036 10.012 11.394 10.481 0.791 8 33_658_18F 3.426 2.527 3.570 3.174 0.565 18 34_686_18F 2.305 2.265 3.013 2.528 0.421 17 30_673_20F 2.165 2.412 1.459 2.012 0.495 25 28_800_20F 3.004 1.891 1.730 2.208 0.694 31 29_770_18F 1.517 1.384 1.246 1.382 0.135 10
94
Table 5-5. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Surface Concentration. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Surface Concentration (lb/yd3)
Mixture Name Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Standard
Deviation
Coefficient of Variation (%)
49_564 42.142 37.922 35.642 38.569 3.298 9 35_752 38.149 42.069 45.607 41.942 3.730 9 45_752 32.424 42.464 36.961 37.283 5.028 13 28_900_8SF_20F 43.308 51.303 45.051 46.554 4.204 9 35_752_20F 48.987 49.661 47.854 48.834 0.913 2 35_752_12CF 44.462 47.510 49.098 47.023 2.356 5 35_752_8SF 43.873 41.652 40.450 41.991 1.737 4 35_752_8SF_20F 44.198 41.879 43.106 43.061 1.160 3 35_752_10M 48.341 58.918 53.198 53.486 5.295 10 35_752_10M_20F 54.117 48.665 51.317 51.367 2.726 5 35_752_50Slag 58.649 54.684 62.573 58.635 3.944 7 35_752_4.5CN 43.146 32.824 41.576 39.182 5.562 14 45_570 32.031 31.344 35.485 32.953 2.219 7 29_450_20F 28.404 38.815 38.552 35.257 5.936 17 33_658_18F 50.868 46.620 45.735 47.741 2.744 6 34_686_18F 52.297 55.521 60.245 56.021 3.998 7 30_673_20F 47.266 39.726 54.786 47.259 7.530 16 28_800_20F 48.184 58.766 68.012 58.320 9.922 17 29_770_18F 46.782 65.549 49.553 53.961 10.130 19
95
Table 5-6. Bulk Diffusion Ratio of Change from 3-Years to 1-Year of Exposure. Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/sec)
Mixture Name 1-Year Samples 3-Year Samples
Bulk Diffusion Ratios (3-Years/1-Year)
49_564 18.801 26.448 1.41 35_752 4.449 4.929 1.11 45_752 9.941 10.633 1.07 28_900_8SF_20F 1.258 0.887 0.71 35_752_20F 5.142 2.208 0.43 35_752_12CF 4.796 3.708 0.77 35_752_8SF 2.070 1.958 0.95 35_752_8SF_20F 2.881 2.645 0.92 35_752_10M 1.105 1.407 1.27 35_752_10M_20F 2.421 2.149 0.89 35_752_50Slag 2.748 2.303 0.84 35_752_4.5CN 7.224 11.479 1.59 45_570 10.087 25.416 2.52 29_450_20F 5.138 10.481 2.04 33_658_18F 5.801 3.174 0.55 34_686_18F 4.427 2.528 0.57 30_673_20F 2.255 2.012 0.89 28_800_20F 2.494 2.208 0.89 29_770_18F 2.443 1.382 0.57 Table 5-7. Pozzolans and Corrosion Inhibitor Effects on Bulk Diffusion Coefficients.
1-Year Samples 3-Year Samples
Mixture Name (a) Bulk Diff. (x10-12)
(m2/sec)
Ratio of Diff. to Control Mixture(c)
Bulk Diff. (x10-12) (m2/sec)
Ratio of Diff. to Control Mixture(c)
35_752(b) 4.449 1.00 4.929 1.00 35_752_20F 5.142 1.16 2.208 0.45 35_752_12CF 4.796 1.08 3.708 0.75 35_752_8SF 2.070 0.47 1.958 0.40 35_752_8SF_20F 2.881 0.65 2.645 0.54 35_752_10M 1.105 0.25 1.407 0.29 35_752_10M_20F 2.421 0.54 2.149 0.44 35_752_50Slag 2.748 0.62 2.303 0.47 35_752_4.5CN 7.224 1.62 11.479 2.33 (a) These mixtures were cast at the laboratory with the same source of materials. (b) 35_752 is defined as the Control Mixture.
96
Table 5-8. Correlation Coefficients (R2) of RCP to Reference Tests.
Test Procedure Test Conducted
Age (Days) 1-Year Bulk
Diffusion (a) 3-Year Bulk
Diffusion (a) Number of
Sample Sets
14 0.59 0.39 18
28 0.67 0.47 18 56 0.81 0.70 18 91 0.80 0.76 18
182 0.79 0.78 18
RCP
(AASHTO T277)
364 0.77 0.81 18 (a) Concrete Mixture Containing Calcium Nitrite (35_752_4.5CN) was not included in the correlation.
Table 5-9. Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Surface Resistivity to Reference Tests.
Test Procedure Test Conducted
Age (Days) 1-Year Bulk
Diffusion (a) 3-Year Bulk
Diffusion (a) Number of
Sample Sets
14 0.48 0.29 18
28 0.77 0.49 18 56 0.80 0.60 18 91 0.84 0.72 18
182 0.81 0.77 18 364 0.70 0.77 18 455 0.70 0.77 18
Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured)
546 0.68 0.73 18 14 0.76 0.50 13(b)
28 0.75 0.53 18 56 0.75 0.60 18 91 0.79 0.72 18
182 0.77 0.79 18 364 0.74 0.76 18 455 0.70 0.78 18
Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured)
546 0.69 0.75 18 (a) Concrete Mixture Containing Calcium Nitrite (35_752_4.5CN) was not included in the correlation.
(b) Fewer set of samples were available for this correlation.
Table 5-10. 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion Relative to 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs). 91-Day RCP Charge Passed
(Coulombs) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion
(x10-12) (m2/s) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion
(x10-12) (m2/s) > 4,000 > 8.478 > 10.518
2,000 – 4,000 4.044 – 8.478 3.834 – 10.518 1,000 – 2,000 1.929 – 4.044 1.398 – 3.834
100 – 1,000 0.165 – 1.929 0.049 – 1.398 < 100 < 0.165 < 0.049
97
Table 5-11. Correlation Coefficients (R2) of RCP and Surface Resistivity to Reference Tests by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis.
1-Year Bulk Diffusion (a) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion (a)
Test Procedure
Test Conducted Age (Days) Average
Standard Deviation Average
Standard Deviation
14 0.54 0.07 0.37 0.04
28 0.61 0.08 0.46 0.05 56 0.75 0.06 0.66 0.05 91 0.74 0.05 0.73 0.04
182 0.73 0.05 0.75 0.04
RCP (AASHTO T277)
364 0.72 0.05 0.78 0.04 14 0.43 0.08 0.28 0.04 28 0.71 0.07 0.48 0.04 56 0.74 0.07 0.58 0.04 91 0.78 0.06 0.69 0.04
182 0.74 0.06 0.73 0.06 364 0.66 0.05 0.75 0.04 455 0.65 0.05 0.74 0.04
Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured)
546 0.64 0.05 0.71 0.04 14 0.73 0.04 0.48 0.03 28 0.69 0.06 0.51 0.04 56 0.69 0.07 0.58 0.05 91 0.73 0.06 0.70 0.04
182 0.72 0.05 0.76 0.04 364 0.70 0.05 0.73 0.04 455 0.65 0.05 0.75 0.04
Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured)
546 0.64 0.05 0.72 0.04 (a) Concrete Mixture Containing Calcium Nitrite (35_752_4.5CN) was not included in the correlation.
Table 5-12. 1 and 3 year Bulk Diffusion Relative to 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs) by
Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)
(m2/s) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)
(m2/s) 91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs) Average
Standard Deviation Average
Standard Deviation
> 4,000 > 8.924 > 0.676 > 10.866 > 0.969 2,000 – 4,000 4.020 – 8.924 0.196 – 0.676 3.814 – 10.866 0.204 – 0.969 1,000 – 2,000 1.820 – 4.020 0.170 – 0.196 1.345 – 3.814 0.115 – 0.204
100 – 1,000 0.162 – 1.820 0.039 – 0.170 0.044 – 1.345 0.013 – 0.115 < 100 < 0.162 < 0.039 < 0.044 < 0.013
98
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 100 200 300 400Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
35_752 (Control)35_752_20F
A
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 100 200 300 400Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
35_752 (Control)35_752_8SF
B
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 100 200 300 400Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
35_752 (Control)35_752_4.5CN
C
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 100 200 300 400Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
35_752 (Control)35_752_10M
D Figure 5-1. Comparative Compressive Strength Development of Laboratory Control Mixture
(35_752) and Laboratory Mixtures Containing: A) Fly Ash (35_752_20F), B) Silica Fume (35_752_8SF), C) Calcium Nitrite (35_752_4.5CN) and D) Metakaoline (35_752_10M).
99
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 100 200 300 400Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
35_752 (Control)45_570
A
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 100 200 300 400Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
35_752 (Control)34_686_18F
B
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 100 200 300 400Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
35_752 (Control)28_800_20F
C Figure 5-2. Comparative Compressive Strength Development of Laboratory Control Mixture
(35_752) and Field Mixtures: A) 45_570, B) 34_686_18F and C) 28_800_20F.
100
0
10
20
30
49_5
64
45_5
70
45_7
52
35_7
52_4
.5C
N
33_6
58_1
8F
35_7
52_2
0F
29_4
50_2
0F
35_7
52_1
2CF
35_7
52
34_6
86_1
8F
35_7
52_8
SF_2
0F
35_7
52_5
0Sla
g
28_8
00_2
0F
29_7
70_1
8F
35_7
52_1
0M_2
0F
30_6
73_2
0F
35_7
52_8
SF
28_9
00_8
SF_2
0F
35_7
52_1
0M
Mixture Name
Bul
k D
iff. C
oef.
(x10
-12 )(m
2 /s)1-Year Samples
Note: Calicium Nitrite (CN), Fly-Ash (F), Classified Fly-Ash (CF), Silica Fume (SF) and Metakaolin (M).
Figure 5-3. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Comparisons.
0
10
20
30
49_5
64
45_5
70
35_7
52_4
.5C
N
45_7
52
29_4
50_2
0F
35_7
52
35_7
52_1
2CF
33_6
58_1
8F
35_7
52_8
SF_2
0F
34_6
86_1
8F
35_7
52_5
0Sla
g
28_8
00_2
0F
35_7
52_2
0F
35_7
52_1
0M_2
0F
30_6
73_2
0F
35_7
52_8
SF
35_7
52_1
0M
29_7
70_1
8F
28_9
00_8
SF_2
0F
Mixture Name
Bul
k D
iff. C
oef.
(x10
-12 )(m
2 /s)
3-Year Samples
Note: Calicium Nitrite (CN), Fly-Ash (F), Classified Fly-Ash (CF), Silica Fume (SF) and Metakaolin (M).
Figure 5-4. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Comparisons.
101
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
35_7
52_4
.5C
N
35_7
52_2
0F
35_7
52_1
2CF
35_7
52
35_7
52_8
SF_2
0F
35_7
52_5
0Sla
g
35_7
52_1
0M_2
0F
35_7
52_8
SF
35_7
52_1
0M
Mixture Name
Rat
io o
f Diff
. Coe
ff. to
Con
trol
Mix 1-Year Data
3-Year Data
Note: Calicium Nitrite (CN), Fly-Ash (F), Classified Fly-Ash (CF), Silica Fume (SF) and Metakaolin (M).
Control Mixture
Figure 5-5. Pozzolans and Corrosion Inhibitors Effects on Bulk Diffusion Coefficients.
y = 1042x0.862
R2 = 0.669
0
5000
10000
15000
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
Calcium Nitrite Mix
A
y = 541x0.936
R2 = 0.802
0
5000
10000
15000
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
Calcium Nitrite Mix
B Figure 5-6. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP (AASHTO T277) at A) 28 Days and B) 91 Days.
102
y = 1647x0.549
R2 = 0.474
0
5000
10000
15000
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
Calcium Nitrite Mix
A
y = 795x0.687
R2 = 0.755
0
5000
10000
15000
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
Calcium Nitrite Mix
B Figure 5-7. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP (AASHTO T277) at A) 28 Days and B) 91 Days.
y = 0.037x0.658
R2 = 0.770
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
Calcium Nitrite Mix
A
y = 0.019x0.803
R2 = 0.840
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
Calcium Nitrite Mix
B Figure 5-8. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Lime Cured) Conductivity at: A) 28 Days and B) 91
Days.
103
y = 0.054x0.397
R2 = 0.492
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
Calcium Nitrite Mix
A
y = 0.027x0.560
R2 = 0.715
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
Calcium Nitrite Mix
B Figure 5-9. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Lime Cured) Conductivity at: A) 28 Days and B) 91
Days.
y = 0.028x0.763
R2 = 0.747
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
Calcium Nitrite Mix
A
y = 0.016x0.848
R2 = 0.787
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
Calcium Nitrite Mix
B Figure 5-10. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Moist Cured) Conductivity at: A) 28 Days and B) 91
Days.
104
y = 0.042x0.487
R2 = 0.533
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
Calcium Nitrite Mix
A
y = 0.023x0.615
R2 = 0.723
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
Calcium Nitrite Mix
B Figure 5-11. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. SR (Moist Cured) Conductivity at: A) 28 Days and B) 91
Days.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
14 28 56 91 182 364 454 544Age (Days)
Cor
rela
tion
Coe
ffici
ent (
R2 )
SR (Lime Cured) SR (Moist Cured)
Figure 5-12. Curing Method Comparison of Correlation Coefficients with 1-Year Bulk Diffusion
Test.
105
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
14 28 56 91 182 364 454 544Age (Days)
Cor
rela
tion
Coe
ffici
ent (
R2 )
SR (Lime Cured) SR (Moist Cured)
Figure 5-13. Curing Method Comparison of Correlation Coefficients with 3-Year Bulk Diffusion
Test.
Depth of Penetration (mm)
Chl
orid
e C
once
ntra
tion
(%C
oncr
ete)
Initial Chloride Background
Total Integral Chloride Content
Figure 5-14. AASHTO T259 Total Integral Chloride Content Analysis.
106
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
0 100 200 300 400Testing Age (Days)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .35_752 (Control)35_752_20F35_752_8SF
Figure 5-15. RCP Test Coulomb Results Change With the Addition of Fly Ash and Silica Fume.
107
0
4000
8000
12000
0 100 200 300 400Testing Age (Days)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .49_56435_75245_75228_900_8SF_20F35_752_20F35_752_12CF
A
0
4000
8000
12000
0 100 200 300 400Testing Age (Days)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
35_752_8SF35_752_8SF_20F35_752_10M35_752_10M_20F35_752_50Slag35_752_4.5CN
B
0
4000
8000
12000
0 100 200 300 400Testing Age (Days)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
45_57029_450_20F33_658_18F34_686_18F
C
0
4000
8000
12000
0 100 200 300 400Testing Age (Days)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .30_673_20F28_800_20F29_770_18F
D Figure 5-16. RCP Test Coulomb Results Change With Age for: A,B) Laboratory Mixtures and
C,D) Field Mixtures.
108
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 200 400 600Age (Days)
Cor
rela
tion
Coe
ffici
ent (
R2 )
RCPSurface Resistivity (Lime)Surface Resistivity (Moist)
91 D
ays
Figure 5-17. General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 1-
Year Bulk Diffusion.
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 200 400 600Age (Days)
Cor
rela
tion
Coe
ffici
ent (
R2 )
RCPSurface Resistivity (Lime)Surface Resistivity (Moist)
91 D
ays
Figure 5-18. General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 3-
Year Bulk Diffusion.
109
y = 541x0.936
R2 = 0.802
0
5000
10000
15000
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
Calcium Nitrite Mix
A
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 1 2 3 4Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
1.929x10-12
B Figure 5-19. Relating Electrical Tests and Bulk Diffusion. A) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP at
91 Days and B) 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Associated with a 91-Day RCP Test of a 1000 Coulombs.
y = 795x0.687
R2 = 0.755
0
5000
10000
15000
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
Calcium Nitrite Mix
A
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 1 2 3 4Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
1.398x10-12
B Figure 5-20. Relating Electrical Tests and Bulk Diffusion. A) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion vs. RCP at
91 Days and B) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Associated with a 91-Day RCP Test of a 1000 Coulombs.
110
RC
P (C
oul o
mbs
)
Bulk Diffusion (m /s)2 A Bulk Diffusion (m /s)2
RC
P (C
oul o
mbs
)
Best-fit-curve based on Power Function Model
B
RC
P (C
oul o
mbs
)
Bulk Diffusion (m /s)2
Variables GeneratedFamily of Curves Fitted to the Random
C
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
)
Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
RCP Limit
Ass
o cia
ted
Bul
k D
iffu s
ion
Co e
ffic
ien t
s
D Figure 5-21. Schematic Process of Bulk Diffusion Correlation to RCP Using Monte Carlo
Simulation: A) Generating Data Parameters from Normal Random Variables, B) Curve Fitting of Generated Variables Based on Power Function Model, C) Family of Curves Generated for each Set of Random Variables, D) Associated Bulk Diffusion Coefficients to the RCP Limits of each Fitted Curve and E) Bulk Diffusion Histogram for Simulated Data.
111
0
200
400
600
3.3 3.8 4.2 4.7Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)
Freq
uenc
y
E Figure 5-21. Continued.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
100 1000 10000 100000Number of Samples
CO
V (%
)
100 Coulombs1000 Coulombs2000 Coulombs4000 Coulombs
A
0
2
4
6
8
10
100 1000 10000 100000Number of Samples
CO
V (%
)
100 Coulombs1000 Coulombs2000 Coulombs4000 Coulombs
B Figure 5-22. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient of Variation Change by the Number of Samples
Used in Monte Carlo Simulation for the Different RCP Standard Limits. A) Mean and B) Standard Deviation for 28-Day RCP Test.
112
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
100 1000 10000 100000Number of Samples
CO
V (%
)
100 Coulombs1000 Coulombs2000 Coulombs4000 Coulombs
A
0
2
4
6
8
10
100 1000 10000 100000Number of Samples
CO
V (%
)
100 Coulombs1000 Coulombs2000 Coulombs4000 Coulombs
B Figure 5-23. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient of Variation Change by the Number of Samples
Used in Monte Carlo Simulation for the Different RCP Standard Limits. A) Mean and B) Standard Deviation for 91-Day RCP Test.
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0 200 400 600Age (Days)
Cor
rela
tion
Coe
ffici
ent (
R2 )
RCPSurface Resistivity (Lime)Surface Resistivity (Moist)
Figure 5-24. General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 1-
Year Bulk Diffusion by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis.
113
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0 200 400 600Age (Days)
Cor
rela
tion
Coe
ffici
ent (
R2 )
RCPSurface Resistivity (Lime)Surface Resistivity (Moist)
Figure 5-25. General Correlation Coefficients (R2) of Electrical Tests by Testing Ages with 3-
Year Bulk Diffusion by Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis.
114
CHAPTER 6 FIELD CORE SAMPLING
Diffusion Coefficients of Cored Samples
The chloride diffusion coefficients and surface chloride concentrations of the cored
samples were obtained by fitting the obtained concentrations at varying depths and the initial
chloride background levels to the non-linear Fick’s Second Law of Diffusion solution (Table
6-1). The Fick’s Second Law solution assumes that the unique chloride mechanism that
transports the chloride ions through the concrete is diffusion. This is a reasonable assumption for
tests conducted under controlled laboratory conditions, such as the Bulk Diffusion test. Elements
located in marine environments, however, are intermittently subjected to chloride exposure due
to tidal fluctuations. Wetting and drying due to tides encourages absorption, which is generated
by capillary suction of the concrete pulling seawater into the concrete. Moreover, the tidal
fluctuations also induce leaching of unbonded shallow surface chlorides. During concrete drying
period, shallow surface water evaporates and chlorides are left either as chemically bonded to the
pore walls or as unbonded crystal forms. Subsequently, when the concrete is again wetted, some
of these unbonded crystals are leached out of the concrete surface. Therefore, chloride profiles of
field cores can differ from that obtained under permanent chloride immersion, such as the
laboratory test Bulk Diffusion. The chloride concentration near the exposed surface can be
considerably less than deeper into the concrete. However, previous research (Sagüés et al. 2001)
has shown that diffusion coefficients can be approximately calculated by fitting the Fick’s
Second Law of Diffusion solution by excluding these misleading peaks in the regression
analysis. The consequent chloride profile penetrations, following the initial surface values
affected by leaching and absorption, fit the “pure diffusion” trend behavior. Figure 6-1 shows
115
some of the diffusion coefficient regression analysis of the bridge cored samples. Diffusion
analyses for each of the cored sample are summarized in APPENDIX D.
The chloride profile obtained from the Granada crash wall (Figure 6-2) was initially
puzzling. The flat trend of chloride ingress showing chloride levels barely above background
levels indicated little chloride penetration. This low penetration was likely caused by the epoxy
coating applied to the surface of the structural elements (Figure 3-12).
Correlation of Long-Term Field Data to Laboratory Test Procedures
The true aim of both the short and long-term chloride exposure testing is to capture the
ability of the concrete in the field to resist chloride intrusion. As the chloride concentration
builds up in a concrete member, it approaches the chloride threshold, which is the point at which
the reinforcement begins to corrode. The longer the chloride penetration is delayed, the longer
the service life of the structure. Unfortunately, the exposure conditions in the field are quite
varied and do not really match those of the standard short or long term laboratory tests that have
been discussed thus far. Some of the factors include chloride concentration of solution, absolute
and variation in temperature, humidity and age of concrete among others. Additionally,
mechanisms other than diffusion contribute to the intrusion of chlorides. Nevertheless, it is
common to take cores of field concrete, determine chloride concentration at varying depths and
calculate chloride diffusion coefficients.
The diffusion coefficients obtained from a pile exposed to seawater are affected by the
sampling locations. The FDOT Structures Design Guidelines (FDOT SDG 2007) defines the
splash zone as the vertical distance from 4 feet below mean low water level (MLW) to 12 feet
above mean high water level (MHW) for structural coastal crossings. This defined exposure zone
is considered to be too wide for comparison purposes of diffusion coefficients. Previous
researchers (Luping 2003; Sagüés et al. 2001) have shown that chloride sampling is very
116
sensitive to the position within the splash zone where the concrete core is taken. Small
differences in the core position have resulted in significant differences in the chloride profile. A
common approach is to measure the location of the core sample in reference to MHW level.
Moreover, additional subdivision of chloride exposure zone has been presented in previous
literature (Tang and Andersen 2000; Tang, L. 2003; Cannon et al. 2006). Figure 6-3 shows these
chloride exposure zones for a typical bridge piling surrounded by seawater. The tidal zone is the
exposed area defined between the MHW and MLW marks that is intermittently subjected to
chloride exposure due to changes of water tides. The submerged zone, defined as that portion of
the pile below the MLW mark, is continuously exposed to salt solution. The splash zone is above
the MHW mark and is subjected to wetting and drying due to wave action. Finally, the dry zone
is above the splash zone and is not directly exposed to chlorides present in seawater but may
receive occasional airborne chlorides. There is no general agreement in current literature that
defines where the splash zone ends and the dry zone begins. The results presented in this section
are based on samples obtained in the tidal zone of exposure.
Diffusion is believed to be the predominant chloride ingress mechanism for samples
obtained from the submerged zone because the concrete is continuously exposed to salt solution
similar to the laboratory test Bulk Diffusion. The chloride concentration in the seawater
surrounding the pile is usually relatively constant. The chlorides ions will naturally migrate from
the high concentration on the outside (high energy) to the low concentration (low energy) in the
inside with a constant moisture present along the path of migration. When the pile is not
continuously submerged, other chloride ingress mechanisms tend to control the chloride
penetration.
117
Previous research (Tang and Andersen 2000; Tang 2003) that compared samples exposed
to the different zones over a 5 year period showed that the diffusion coefficients were highest in
the submerged zone followed by tidal, splash and dry zone. Tang (2003) showed, however, that
when the exposure period was 10 years, the chloride ingress in the tidal zone significantly
increased during the period from year 5 to year 10. Table 6-2 summarizes the results of this
previous research. The table also includes diffusion coefficients calculated from chloride
sampling on 39-year old piles extracted during a bridge demolition (Cannon et al., 2006).
Diffusion analyses for each of these cored samples are summarized in APPENDIX H. The
diffusion coefficients from the 39-year old piles appear to confirm the trend implied by Tang’s
work.
Table 6-2 also includes the ratio of the diffusion coefficient for the submerged zone to that
of the tidal zone. These ratios are plotted in Figure 6-4 and show a decreasing trend over the life
of the structure. Indeed the data from the 39-year old piles constructed with a completely
different mixture appears to confirm the decreasing trend that Tang’s work implies.
The trend illustrated in Figure 6-4 might be used to relate the results of bulk diffusion test
to those of the field cores obtained from the bridges in service. If it is assumed that the
environmental conditions of the bulk diffusion test are similar to those of the completely
submerged pile in service, then the diffusion coefficients can be compared to give a reasonable
correlation between laboratory tests and field conditions. From this viewpoint, the plot in Figure
6-4 indicates that the bulk diffusion test will likely give the highest diffusion coefficient for
concretes less than about ten years old. As the concrete ages, however, the tidal zone diffusion
coefficient appears to exceed that of the submerged zone signifying that the bulk diffusion test
might not give the most conservative results.
118
This connection can be tested by comparing the results of the 1 and 3 year bulk diffusion
testing to the diffusion coefficients of the piles from which the samples were collected for this
research, as long as the mixture proportions and constituents are comparable. The diffusion
coefficients from mixture design 35_752_8SF_20F (Table 5-2 and Table 5-4) are compared to
diffusion coefficients from extracted cores that were taken from piles that used a similar mixture
design (including the addition of silica fume). The comparison is based on the cores taken at the
tidal zone. Additionally, available chloride profiles from FDOT research currently in progress
(Paredes 2007) were included in this analysis. Table 6-3 shows the summary of the calculated
laboratory diffusion coefficients with the statistical parameters average and standard deviation.
Detailed data on these calculations are presented in APPENDIX H.
Figure 6-5 shows the diffusion coefficients of the selected laboratory and field samples
plotted on a logarithmic scale. The field samples used in the plot were selected because they
were extracted from tidal zone. There is nearly an order of magnitude difference between the
diffusion coefficients from the bulk diffusion tests and those from the field-cored samples. This
variation can be attributed to the several factors affecting chloride diffusion under field
conditions as the sampling location and the concrete ageing.
Assuming that the ratio of the submerged to tidal diffusion coefficients is controlled
primarily by environment, then the ratios from Table 6-2 can be used to “convert” the tidal
diffusion coefficient to a submerged diffusion coefficient. Although this assumption is probably
not strictly correct since variation in concrete permeability will likely affect the ratio as well, it
makes a convenient method by which the laboratory results can be related to field results.
Because the piles sampled for this research were approximately ten years in service, the highest
calculated ratio of 1.52 for a comparable age of exposure of 10 years will give the most
119
conservative result. Applying this ratio to the field results ostensibly converts those diffusion
coefficients to a submerged condition as is shown in Figure 6-5. Comparing these diffusion
coefficients to the laboratory diffusion coefficients indicates that the 1 and 3 year bulk diffusion
coefficients are higher than the field values for a ten year period.
It is not clear why 1 and 3 year laboratory values are higher than the ten-year field values.
This analysis considered only the diffusion coefficients and not the chloride content at the level
of the steel. The diffusion coefficients are derived from fitting a curve to the chloride profile
data. It perhaps gives a better indication of the shape of the curve rather than a direct indication
of the chloride content at a certain depth. Further data are needed to better characterize this time
dependency. One suggestion is to obtain shorter and longer exposure periods in the laboratory
samples to establish time variations of the diffusion for the laboratory samples. This trend can
then be used to establish correlation with the longer-term results obtained from the field on
comparable mixtures. Nevertheless, it appears that the 1 and 3-year bulk diffusion results
overestimate the diffusion coefficients from ten-year old concrete in the field.
120
Table 6-1. Calculated Diffusion Parameters of Cored Samples.
Bridge Name Lab. # Exposure (Years)
Initial Chloride Content (lb/yd3)
Surface Chloride Content (lb/yd3)
Diffusion Coefficient (x10-12) (m2/sec)
Water Chloride Content (ppm)
5016 0.547(a) 20.336 0.050
5017 0.533 41.112 0.149
Hurricane Pass (HPB)
5018
15
0.561 44.904 0.151
19284
5054 0.467 33.012 0.585 Broadway Replacement (BRB) 5081
5
0.858(b) 32.401 0.358
14864(c)
5082 0.467 42.497 0.628 Seabreeze West Bound (SWB) 5083
9
0.432 49.660 0.329
14864(c)
Granada (GRB) 5084 9 0.637 0.942 0.051 14864(c)
5078 0.556 26.791 0.185
5079 0.423 30.269 0.132
Turkey Creek (TCB)
5080
7
0.417 33.237 0.155
9608
5075 0.614 27.046 0.361
5076 0.432 28.700 0.540
New Roosevelt (NRB)
5077
9
0.382 29.696 0.373
31072
(a) Initial Chlorides were not tested for this sample. An average between Lab sample# 5017 and 5018 was reported.
(b) Initial Chloride value was considered an erroneous value (too high). The value of initial chlorides from Lab sample# 5054 was used.
(c) The Bridge Structures are exposed to the same body of water.
121
Table 6-2. Time Dependent Changes in Diffusion Coefficients from Submerged and Tidal Zones. Diffusion Coefficient (x10-12) (m2/sec)
Mixture Chloride
Exposure Zone
Exposed for 0.6-1.3 years
Exposed for 5.1-5.4 years
Exposed for 10.1-10.5 years
Exposed for ~39 years
Submerged 4.55 2.51 1.95 -Tidal 1.98 1.31 1.43 -1-40(a)(c) Ratio (Sub./Tidal) 2.30 1.92 1.36 -Submerged 2.35 1.93 1.67 -Tidal 0.54 0.91 1.10 -2-40 (a) (c) Ratio (Sub./Tidal) 4.35 2.12 1.52 -Submerged 3.78 1.26 1.25 -Tidal 1.49 0.41 1.33 -3-40(a) (d) Ratio (Sub./Tidal) 2.54 3.07 0.94 -Submerged - - - 11.48Tidal - - - 18.27Pile 44-2(b) (c) Ratio (Sub./Tidal) - - - 0.63
(a) Tang, L. 2003. (b) Cannon et al. 2006. (c) Plain cement concrete mixture. No additional cementitious materials were added. (d) Concrete mixture containing silica fume. Table 6-3. Laboratory Bulk Diffusion Coefficients for Comparable Mixtures with an Expected
Low Chloride Permeability Design. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion
Coefficient (x10-12) (m2/sec) 3-Year Bulk Diffusion
Coefficient (x10-12) (m2/sec)
Mixture(a) Sample
ID Results Average Standard Deviation Results Average
Standard Deviation
A 2.351 2.850B 2.729 2.683
35_752 _8SF_20F
C 3.562 2.4022.645 0.226
A 1.691 - - -HRP3(b) B 1.782 - - -A 2.071 - - -HRP4(b) B 1.355
2.220 0.744
- - -(a) Mixture design: w/c: 0.35, Cementitious:752 pcy, 20% Fly Ash and 8% Silica Fume. (b) Samples obtained from FDOT research currently in progress (Paredes 2007).
122
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 0.5 1 1.5 2Mid-Layer from Surface (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (
lb/y
d3 ) Include in the Regression
Not Include in the RegressionFitted Regression
A
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 0.5 1 1.5 2Mid-Layer from Surface (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (
lb/y
d3 ) Include in the Regression
Not Include in the RegressionFitted Regression
B Figure 6-1. Diffusion Regression Analysis for Cored Samples: A) NRB (Lab #5075) and B) HPB
(Lab# 5017).
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 0.5 1 1.5 2Mid-Layer from Surface (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (
lb/y
d3 ) Include in the Regression
Fitted Regression
Figure 6-2. Diffusion Regression Analysis for Cored Sample GRB (Lab #5084).
123
Supe
rstru
ctur
eSu
bstru
ctur
e
Water Level
MHW
MLW
Tidal Zone
Submerged Zone
Splash Zone
Dry Zone
Figure 6-3. Chloride Exposure Zones of a Typical Bridge Structure.
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40Cl Exposure Period (Years)
Rat
io o
f Cl D
iffus
ion
(Sub
mer
ged/
Tid
al)
1-40(a) 2-40(a)3-40(a) Pile 44-2(b)
(a) Tang, L. 2003. (b) Cannon et al. 2006.
Figure 6-4. Time Dependent Changes in Diffusion Coefficients from Submerged and Tidal
Zones.
124
0.01
0.1
1
10
100 1000 10000Cl Exposure Period (Days)
Diff
usio
n C
oeffi
cien
ts (x
10-1
2 ) (m
2 /s)
35_752_8SF_20F (Sample A) 35_752_8SF_20F (Sample B)35_752_8SF_20F (Sample C) HRP3 (Sample A)HRP3 (Sample B) HRP4 (Sample A)HRP4 (Sample B) HPB(LAB#5017)HPB(LAB#5018) BRB(LAB#5054)BRB(LAB#5081) SWB(LAB#5082)SWB(LAB#5083) TCB(LAB#5078)TCB(LAB#5079) TCB(LAB#5080)NRB(LAB#5075) NRB(LAB#5076)NRB(LAB#5077)
Field Data Average
1-Year Laboratory Data
Field Data Average x 1.52
(a)
(b)(c)
(a) Submerged Exposure(b) Tidal Exposure(c) Estimated Submerged Exposure
Figure 6-5. Time Dependent Laboratory and Field Diffusion Coefficient Trend of Change.
125
CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDED APPROACH FOR DETERMINING LIMITS OF CONDUCTIVITY TESTS
In the previous section, it was concluded that 91 days was the earliest age at which the
RCP and Surface Resistivity testing age correlated well with the chloride diffusion penetration of
a 1 or 3 year Bulk Diffusion test. More realistic diffusion coefficients associated with these test
results can be derived. However, the present FDOT specifications (FDOT 346 2004) require
shorter time period of 28 days to predicted diffusion rates for a specific mix design. Therefore,
the following recommendations present a method by which RCP and Surface Resistivity rapid
electrical tests can be calibrated so that, with reasonable confidence, diffusion coefficients can be
predicted from 28 days samples. It is anticipated that this approach would be used for quality
control purpose and not for service life prediction.
The original RCP coulomb limit standards (Table 2-1) are the staring point for the new
recommendations. These coulomb limits were derived in the original research from 91-day RCP
samples. Therefore, to maintain consistency with the original method and because this age
appears to be optimal for predicting the long-term chloride diffusion, the diffusion coefficient
associated with the coulombs limits for a 91-day test were selected as the “standards” for which
the allowable limits would be set when the RCP or SR test is conducted at 28 days after casting.
The 1-year Bulk Diffusion results derived from the Monte Carlo analysis were selected as the
“standard” benchmark coefficients (Table 5-12) for the analysis. The fundamental assumption is
that the selected diffusion coefficient is sufficiently low to give the desired service life with the
associated concrete cover.
RCP and Bulk Diffusion
The coulomb limits associated with the “standard” diffusion coefficients (Table 5-12) are
calculated from the trend line equation derived on the 28-day RCP correlation to the 1-year Bulk
126
Diffusion test. A statistical study is included to ensure the validity of this new RCP limit. A
confidence interval for the mean response of the test correlations was employed. This confidence
interval represents the statistical probability that the next set of samples tested will fall within the
specified acceptance range. It was found that a modified linear regression trend presented as a
power function (APPENDIX F) provided the best representation of the relationship between the
RCP and Bulk Diffusion test results. Therefore, the confidence interval was calculated according
to the analytical derivation presented as followed:
)(Y oox yyo
εμ ±= (7-1)
( )xx
oo S
xxn
sty21)(
−+= αε (7-2)
2−−
=n
bSSs xyyy (7-3)
( )∑=
−=n
iixx xxS
1
2 (7-4)
( )∑=
−=n
iiyy yyS
1
2 (7-5)
( )( )∑=
−−=n
iiixy yyxxS
1
(7-6)
where oxYμ is the mean confidence limit response for an independent variable xo; yo: dependent
variable from regression analysis equation;ε(yo) is the standard error of dependent variable; tα: one-tailed Student’s t-distribution value with n-2 degrees of freedom for an specific confidence level; yi: experimental dependent variables; y : mean of experimental dependent variables; xi: experimental independent variables; x : mean of experimental independent variables; b: slope value from regression analysis; n: number of samples.
Figure 7-1 shows the 90% confidence limit for the mean response of the 28-day RCP test
correlation to the 1-year Bulk Diffusion reference test. The 28-day RCP test coulomb limit for
concrete elements with very low chloride permeability with 90% confidence on the correlated
data is derived as shown in Figure 7-2. Moreover, several coulomb limits for concrete elements
under extremely aggressive environments at different levels of confidence are presented in Table
127
7-1. The RCP coulomb limits were rounded to reflect the variability in the data and for a more
practical utilization. The different levels of confidence are provided to offer some flexibility to
the Florida Department of Transportation to make a final decision specifically suitable to their
standards.
It is important to recognize that the limits presented in Table 7-1 and in the following
sections are based on the relatively limited data gathered from the laboratory specimens prepared
and tested as a part of this research project. For example, consider the 90% confidence level in
the table. This indicates that if a random sample is selected from the tests reported in this
research that has an RCP value less than 1,422 coulombs, then, with 90% confidence, that same
concrete would have a 1-year bulk diffusion coefficient that is less than 1.820x10-12 m2/s. Recall
that this diffusion coefficient standard was established in the previous chapter to represent
concrete that will have RCP test results of 1000 coulombs when tested at 91 days.
In addition, the recommended RCP limits are evaluated to corroborate their applicability to
the standard FDOT specifications. These more flexible proposed RCP limits still need to meet
the basic rating criteria of the current FDOT specification. Therefore, the recommended limits
must discriminate between concrete samples that were designed as low chloride permeable and
samples with higher permeability. FDOT categorizes Class V and Class V Special containing
silica fume or metakaolin as a pozzolan as low permeable mixtures. The higher RCP associated
with the lower confidence level showed in Table 7-1 is selected as the more representative limit
for the evaluation. The project concrete mixtures were divided into two groups. The first group
included mixtures that were not design to meet FDOT standard specifications and the second
group included samples designed to meet the minimum requirements. Table 7-2 shows the 28-
day RCP pass rates by FDOT standard specifications for the two groups of samples. All the RCP
128
coulomb results from the first group of samples exceed the current FDOT standard of 1000
coulombs as well as the limit of 1400 coulombs. In the second group, less than half of the
samples passed the current FDOT RCP limit. Data from field mixtures were also used to evaluate
various RCP limits (Chini, Muszynski, and Hicks 2003). Data from the 491 samples collected on
construction projects were included in the analysis (Table 7-2). The samples were collected from
actual job sites of concrete pours in the state of Florida.
The diffusion coefficients presented in Table 7-1 were also used to derive the entire
equivalent charges in coulombs for the different chloride permeability ranges. The allowable
coulomb limits for a 28-day RCP test response with a 90% of confidence on the correlated data
are derived in Figure 7-3 to Figure 7-5. Coulomb limits for concrete elements with different
chloride permeability at different levels of confidence are summarized in Table 7-3 to Table 7-5.
Moreover, the RCP coulomb limits were rounded for a more practical utilization.
SR and Bulk Diffusion
Chini, Muszynski and Hicks (2003) evaluated the possible replacement of the widely used
electrical RCP test (AASHTO T277, ASTM C1202) by the simple non-destructive Surface
Resistivity test. A permeability rating table to aid the categorization of the equivalent Surface
Resistivity results to the chloride permeability of the concrete was proposed (Table 2-3). A
minimum resistivity value of 37 KOhm-cm was reported to represent concrete with low chloride
ion permeability. However, the permeability interpretation of the Surface Resistivity test results
was entirely based on correlations to the previous ranges provided in the standard RCP test
(Table 2-1). As it was indicated in the previous section, incorrect interpretation of electrical test
results can be made when relying entirely on these RCP standard ranges. Therefore, a more
rational approach to setting the limits of the Surface Resistivity results is needed.
129
The Surface Resistivity test was conducted using two methods of curing, one at 100%
humidity (moist cured) and the other in a saturated Ca(OH)2 solution (lime cured). It was
previously concluded that either of the methods will derive an equal resistivity behavior.
Consequently, Surface Resistivity results from the most commonly used curing method, moist
cured, are used in this section. The long-term diffusion coefficients derived in the previous
section are also used as a benchmark for the interpretation of the Surface Resistivity results
(Table 5-12). These coefficients are believed to represent a realistic interpretation of low chloride
permeability concrete. The 28-day Surface Resistivity limits associated with the standard
diffusion are calculated from the trend line equation of correlation to the reference test. A
statistical study is included to ensure the validity of these new Surface Resistivity limits. A
confidence interval for the mean response of the test correlations was included. Figure 7-6 shows
the 90% confidence interval for the mean response of the 28-day Surface Resistivity test
correlation to the 1-year Bulk Diffusion reference test. The allowable 28-day Surface Resistivity
limit for concrete elements with very low chloride permeability with a 90% of confidence on the
correlated data is derived in Figure 7-7. Moreover, several Surface Resistivity limits for concrete
elements under extremely aggressive environments at different levels of confidence are
presented in Table 7-6. The limits were rounded for a more practical utilization. The different
levels of confidence are provided to offer some flexibility to the Florida Department of
Transportation to make a final decision specifically suitable to their standards.
Additionally, the recommended Surface Resistivity limits are evaluated to corroborate their
applicability to evaluate low chloride permeability concrete. A low chloride permeability
concrete is assumed as the FDOT standard to be a Class V or Class V Special concrete
containing silica fume or metakaolin as a pozzolan. Similar analysis as shown in Table 7-2 for
130
the RCP limits evaluation is presented. The lower resistivity limit associated with the lower
confidence level (Table 7-6) is selected as the more representative for the evaluation.
Furthermore, Surface Resistivity results reported by Chini, Muszynski and Hicks (2003) research
are also included in the validation (Table 7-7).
The diffusion coefficients presented in Table 7-1 were also used to derive the entire
equivalent surface resistivity limits for the different chloride permeability ranges. The allowable
Surface Resistivity limits for a 28-day SR test response with a 90% of confidence on the
correlated data are derived in Figure 7-8 to Figure 7-10. Resistivity limits for concrete elements
with different chloride permeability at different levels of confidence are summarized in Table
7-8 to Table 7-10. Moreover, the Surface Resistivity limits were rounded for a more practical
utilization.
131
Table 7-1. Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test for Concrete Elements Under Extremely Aggressive Environments (Very Low Chloride Permeability) and Associated Confidence Levels.
28-Day RCP Limits
Charge Passed (Coulombs)
Charge Passed (Rounded Values) (Coulombs) Confidence Level
1,422 1,400 90% 1,335 1,300 95% 1,174 1,150 99%
Table 7-2. 28-Day RCP Pass Rates of Several Concrete Samples by FDOT Standard
Specifications (FDOT 346 2004).
28-Day RCP Limits (Coulombs)
Without Silica Fume or MK(3) With Silica Fume or MK(3) 1000 1150 1300 1400 1000 1150 1300 1400
Total Number of Mixtures
14 14 14 14 5(1) 5(1) 5(1) 5(1)
Number of Passed Mixtures
0 0 0 0 2 2 3 4
Cur
rent
Res
earc
h
Percentage of Passed Mixtures
0% 0% 0% 0% 40% 40% 60% 80%
Total Number of Mixtures (2)
455 455 455 455 36 36 36 36
Number of Passed Mixtures
4 8 13 18 15 18 21 23
Chi
ni, M
uszy
nski
, and
Hic
ks 2
003
Percentage of Passed Mixtures
<1% 2% 3% 4% 42% 50% 58% 64%
(1) All Mixtures were cast at the FDOT laboratory. (2) All Mixtures were collected from actual job sites. (3) Metakaolin.
132
Table 7-3. Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test with a 90% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability.
AASHTO T277 Standard Limits Current Research Allowable RCP Limits 90% Confidence Level
28-Day RCP Chloride
Permeability
91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs)
1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
Charge Passed (Coulombs)
Charge Passed (Rounded Values) (Coulombs)
High > 4,000 > 8.924 > 5,473 > 5,450Moderate 2,000 - 4,000 4.020 – 8.924 2,991 - 5,473 2,950 - 5,450Low 1,000 - 2,000 1.820 – 4.020 1,422 - 2,991 1,400 - 2,950Very Low 100 - 1,000 0.162 – 1.820 113 - 1,422 110 - 1,400Negligible < 100 < 0.162 < 113 < 110 Table 7-4. Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test with a 95% Confidence Levels for Concrete
Elements with Different Chloride Permeability.
AASHTO T277 Standard Limits Current Research Allowable RCP Limits 95% Confidence Level
28-Day RCP Chloride
Permeability
91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs)
1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
Charge Passed (Coulombs)
Charge Passed (Rounded Values) (Coulombs)
High > 4,000 > 8.924 > 5,105 > 5,100Moderate 2,000 - 4,000 4.020 – 8.924 2,861 - 5,105 2,850 - 5,100Low 1,000 - 2,000 1.820 – 4.020 1,335 - 2,861 1,300 - 2,850Very Low 100 - 1,000 0.162 – 1.820 93 - 1,335 90 - 1,300Negligible < 100 < 0.162 < 93 < 90 Table 7-5. Allowable RCP Values for a 28-Day Test with a 99% Confidence Levels for Concrete
Elements with Different Chloride Permeability.
AASHTO T277 Standard Limits Current Research Allowable RCP Limits 99% Confidence Level
28-Day RCP Chloride
Permeability
91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs)
1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
Charge Passed (Coulombs)
Charge Passed (Rounded Values) (Coulombs)
High > 4,000 > 8.924 > 4,427 > 4,400Moderate 2,000 - 4,000 4.020 – 8.924 2,614 - 4,427 2,600 - 4,400Low 1,000 - 2,000 1.820 – 4.020 1,174 - 2,614 1,150 - 2,600Very Low 100 - 1,000 0.162 – 1.820 61 - 1,174 60 - 1,150Negligible < 100 < 0.162 < 61 < 60
133
Table 7-6. Allowable Surface Resistivity Values for a 28-Day Test for Concrete Elements Under Extremely Aggressive Environments.
28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Conductivity
(1/(kOhm-cm)) Resistivity
(kOhm-cm) Resistivity (Rounded
Values) (kOhm-cm) Confidence
Level 0.0377 26.52 27 90% 0.0360 27.76 28 95% 0.0328 30.50 31 99%
Table 7-7. 28-Day Surface Resistivity Pass Rates of Several Concrete Samples by FDOT
Standard Specifications (FDOT 346 2004).
28-Day Surface Resistivity Limits (KOhm-cm)
Without Silica Fume or MK(3) With Silica Fume or MK(3) 37 31 28 27 37 31 28 27
Total Number of Mixtures
14 14 14 14 5(1) 5(1) 5(1) 5(1)
Number of Passed Mixtures
0 0 0 0 1 3 4 4
Cur
rent
Res
earc
h
Percentage of Passed Mixtures
0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 60% 80% 80%
Total Number of Mixtures (2)
462 462 462 462 40 40 40 40
Number of Passed Mixtures
7 16 25 28 8 18 19 20
Chi
ni, M
uszy
nski
, and
Hic
ks 2
003
Percentage of Passed Mixtures
2% 4% 5% 6% 20% 45% 48% 50%
(1) All Mixtures were cast at the FDOT laboratory. (2) All Mixtures were collected from actual job sites. (3) Metakaolin.
134
Table 7-8. Allowable Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Values for a 28-Day Test with a 90% Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability.
AASHTO T277 Standard Limits
Current Research Allowable SR Limits 90% Confidence Level
28-Day Surface Resistivity
Chloride Permeability
91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs)
1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
Conductivity (1/(kOhm-cm))
Resistivity (kOhm-cm)
Resistivity (Rounded Values) (kOhm-cm)
High > 4,000 > 8.924 > 0.1248 < 8.01 < 8Moderate 2,000-4,000 4.020 – 8.924 0.0722-0.1248 8.01-13.86 8 - 14Low 1,000-2,000 1.820 – 4.020 0.0377-0.0722 13.86-26.52 14 - 27Very Low 100-1,000 0.162 – 1.820 0.0043-0.0377 26.52-232.93 27 - 233Negligible < 100 < 0.162 < 0.0043 > 232.93 > 233 Table 7-9. Allowable Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Values for a 28-Day Test with a 95%
Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability. AASHTO T277 Standard
Limits Current Research Allowable SR Limits 95% Confidence Level
28-Day Surface Resistivity
Chloride Permeability
91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs)
1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
Conductivity (1/(kOhm-cm))
Resistivity (kOhm-cm)
Resistivity (Rounded Values) (kOhm-cm)
High > 4,000 > 8.924 > 0.1186 < 8.43 < 9Moderate 2,000-4,000 4.020 – 8.924 0.0699-0.1186 8.43-14.31 9 – 15Low 1,000-2,000 1.820 – 4.020 0.0360-0.0699 14.31-27.76 15 – 28Very Low 100-1,000 0.162 – 1.820 0.0037-0.0360 27.76-269.58 28 – 270Negligible < 100 < 0.162 < 0.0037 > 269.58 > 270 Table 7-10. Allowable Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Values for a 28-Day Test with a 99%
Confidence Levels for Concrete Elements with Different Chloride Permeability. AASHTO T277 Standard
Limits Current Research Allowable SR Limits 99% Confidence Level
28-Day Surface Resistivity
Chloride Permeability
91-Day RCP Charge Passed (Coulombs)
1-Year Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
Conductivity (1/(kOhm-cm))
Resistivity (kOhm-cm)
Resistivity (Rounded Values) (kOhm-cm)
High > 4,000 > 8.924 > 0.1069 < 9.36 < 10Moderate 2,000-4,000 4.020 – 8.924 0.0654-0.1069 9.36-15.29 10 – 16Low 1,000-2,000 1.820 – 4.020 0.0328-0.0654 15.29-30.50 16 – 31Very Low 100-1,000 0.162 – 1.820 0.0028-0.0328 30.50-363.58 31 – 364Negligible < 100 < 0.162 < 0.0028 > 363.58 > 364
135
y = 1042x0.862
R2 = 0.669
0
5000
10000
15000
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
90% Confidence Limit
Fitted Correlation
Figure 7-1. 90% Confidence Limit for Mean Response of 28-Day RCP Test vs. 1-Year Bulk
Diffusion Test Correlation.
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1 1.4 1.8 2.2Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
).
Fitted Correlation90% Confidence Limit
1.820x10-12
1422
Figure 7-2. 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements
with a Very Low Chloride Permeability.
136
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
).Fitted Correlation90% Confidence Limit
8.924x10-12
5473
Figure 7-3. 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements
with a Moderate Chloride Permeability.
0
2000
4000
6000
2 3 4 5 6Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
).
Fitted Correlation90% Confidence Limit
4.020x10-12
2991
Figure 7-4. 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements
with a Low Chloride Permeability.
137
0
100
200
300
400
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
).Fitted Correlation90% Confidence Limit
0.162x10-12
113
Figure 7-5. 28-Day RCP Coulombs Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for Concrete Elements
with a Negligible Chloride Permeability.
y = 0.028x0.763
R2 = 0.747
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity (1
/(kO
hm-c
m)
90% Confidence Limit
Fitted Correlation
Figure 7-6. 90% Confidence Limit for Mean Response of 28-Day Surface Resistivity Test (Moist
Cured) vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Test Correlation.
138
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
1 1.5 2Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity (1
/(kO
hm-c
m) Fitted Correlation
90% Confidence Limit
1.820x10-12
0.0377
Figure 7-7. 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for
Concrete Elements with a Very Low Chloride Permeability.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity (1
/(kO
hm-c
m) Fitted Correlation
90% Confidence Limit
8.924x10-12
0.1248
Figure 7-8. 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for
Concrete Elements with a Moderate Chloride Permeability.
139
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
2 3 4 5 6Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity (1
/(kO
hm-c
m) Fitted Correlation
90% Confidence Limit
4.020x10-12
0.0722
Figure 7-9. 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for
Concrete Elements with a Low Chloride Permeability.
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4Bulk Diffusion (x10-12)(m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity (1
/(kO
hm-c
m) Fitted Correlation
90% Confidence Limit
0.162x10-12
0.0043
Figure 7-10. 28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) Limit with a 90% Confidence Level for
Concrete Elements with a Negligible Chloride Permeability.
140
CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This work details results of a research project aimed at evaluating currently available
conductivity tests and compare the results of these tests to those from long-term diffusion tests.
Rapid Chloride Permeability (RCP) and Surface Resistivity (SR) were evaluated. The long-term
test Bulk Diffusion was selected as a benchmark to evaluate conductivity tests. This test was
conducted using 1 and 3 years chloride exposure. Diffusion coefficients from Bulk Diffusion test
results were determined by fitting the data obtained in the chloride profiles analysis to Fick’s
Diffusion Second Law equation. The electrical results from the short-term tests RCP and SR at
14, 28, 56, 91, 182 and 364 days of continuous moist curing were then compared to the long-
term diffusion reference test. Moreover, cored samples obtained at the tidal zone of marine
exposure from several bridge structures around the state of Florida were obtained to be compared
to the laboratory diffusion results. Conclusions were as follows:
• The SR test was conducted using two methods of curing, one at 100% humidity (moist
cured) and the other in a saturated Ca(OH)2 solution (lime cured). The comparison of
results of the SR tests between the two curing procedures showed no significant
differences. Therefore, it is concluded that either of the methods will provide similar
results.
• The mixture proportions affected directly the rate of chloride diffusion into concrete. The
mixture designs with the higher water-cementitious ratios, lower cementitious contents
and without the presence of pozzolans showed significantly higher diffusion coefficients
compared with the rest of the samples. Furthermore, the addition of metakaolin decreased
the chloride diffusion compared to the control mixture about 70 percent for the 1 and 3
years of exposure results. Moreover, the addition of silica fume, ground blast furnace slag
141
and ternary blends of fly-ash with metakaolin or silica fume decreased the chloride
diffusion approximately 50 percent for the 1 and 3 years of exposure results. The chloride
diffusion for samples containing fly-ash and classified fly-ash did not improve for
samples exposed for a year. However, they improved for the longer exposure period of 3
year. These could be related to the slow pozzolanic reaction of the mineral admixture fly
ash. Finally, the addition of calcium nitrite did not improve the concrete diffusion
coefficient. The calcium nitrite admixture reduces the tendency for reinforcing steel to
undergo corrosion but not the penetration of chlorides through concrete.
• The correlation coefficients (R2) obtained for the short-term tests showed that the best
testing age for an RCP and SR test to predict a 1 and 3 years Bulk Diffusion test was 91
days. Moreover, this finding was corroborated by the use of a Monte Carlo simulation. A
simulation was used to obtain the respective correlation coefficients (R2) for respective
tests including the grade of variability from the experimental data.
• A calibrated scale relating the equivalent RCP measured charge in coulombs to the
chloride ion permeability of the concrete was developed. The proposed scale was based
on the correlation of the 91-day RCP results related to the chloride permeability
measured by a 1-year Bulk Diffusion test.
• A method by which RCP and SR can be calibrated so that, with reasonable confidence,
diffusion coefficients can be predicted from 28 days samples was presented.
• The diffusion results obtained from the bridge cored samples obtained at the tidal zone
with an average of ten-year of exposure showed considerable lower chloride penetration
than the 1 and 3 year laboratory results. It appears that the laboratory methods
overestimate the chloride ingress from concrete exposed in the field.
142
APPENDIX A CONCRETE MIXTURE LABELING SYSTEM CONVERSION
The names of the concrete mixtures in the previous main body sections are different than
the presented in the following Appendix sections. Therefore Table A-1 shows the respective
mixture labeling conversions.
Table A-1. Appendix Concrete Mixture Labeling System Conversion. Main Body Mixture
Name Labels Appendix Mixture
Name Labels 49_564 CPR1 35_752 CPR2 45_752 CPR3 28_900_8SF_20F CPR4 35_752_20F CPR5 35_752_12CF CPR6 35_752_8SF CPR7 35_752_8SF_20F CPR8 35_752_10M CPR9 35_752_10M_20F CPR10 35_752_50Slag CPR11 35_752_4.5CN CPR12 45_570 CPR13 29_450_20F CPR15 33_658_18F CPR16 34_686_18F CPR17 30_673_20F CPR18 28_800_20F CPR20 29_770_18F CPR21
143
APPENDIX B CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS
Table B-1. Concrete Compressive Strength Data Results MIX CPR1
Testing Age(Days) A B C AVG.
14 5442 5502 5732 555928 5710 5745 5690 571556 6214 5992 6321 617691 6400 6208 6510 6373
182 6638 6247 6217 6367364 6594 6145 6314 6351
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
MIX CPR2Testing Age
(Days) A B C AVG.
14 7952 7914 8104 799028 8462 7857 8030 811656 8814 8576 7703 836491 8681 8608 8194 8494
182 8371 8768 8738 8626364 8842 8817 8842 8834
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
MIX CPR3
Testing Age(Days) A B C AVG.
14 5869 5866 5782 583928 6352 6284 6219 628556 6293 6431 6442 638991 6300 6411 6390 6367
182 7185 6990 7023 7066364 6768 7295 6779 6947
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
MIX CPR4Testing Age
(Days) A B C AVG.
14 8382 8434 8531 844928 9122 9058 8797 899256 9261 9198 9173 921191 9475 9620 9499 9531
182 9406 9416 9073 9298364 9077 9416 9908 9467
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
MIX CPR5
Testing Age(Days) A B C AVG.
14 6797 6686 7079 685428 7441 7354 7023 727356 8376 8393 7942 823791 8482 8390 8471 8448
182 9016 8601 8533 8717364 9212 9323 9089 9208
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
MIX CPR6Testing Age
(Days) A B C AVG.
14 5784 6053 5722 585328 6163 6386 6327 629256 6682 7004 6889 685891 7505 7251 7295 7350
182 7745 7444 7405 7531364 7670 8086 7600 7785
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
MIX CPR7 Sample not included in Average
Testing Age(Days) A B C AVG.
14 7709 7850 7026 752828 8082 8343 8861 842956 8995 8896 8158 868391 8161 9410 8924 8832
182 9483 8424 8891 8933364 8951 9111 7379 9031
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
MIX CPR8Testing Age
(Days) A B C AVG.
14 6533 6536 6342 647028 7106 6969 7153 707656 6936 7499 7515 731791 7072 5224 7475 6590
182 7535 7969 8004 7836364 8007 7198 7769 7658
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
MIX CPR9
Testing Age(Days) A B C AVG.
14 8493 8957 8795 874828 8681 8541 8443 855556 8792 9418 8996 906991 8352 8117 8225 8231
182 9239 9028 9335 9201364 9520 9018 9962 9500
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
MIX CPR10Testing Age
(Days) A B C AVG.
14 7768 7727 8195 789728 8098 8598 8169 828856 8582 8939 8593 870591 8964 8859 9078 8967
182 9573 9277 9343 9398364 9050 9489 9270 9270
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
144
Table B-1. Continued. MIX CPR11
Testing Age(Days) A B C AVG.
17 7251 6858 8007 737228 7647 8109 8101 795256 8021 7883 8460 812191 7940 8016 8236 8064
182 8629 8035 8323 8329364 8547 8752 8649 8649
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
MIX CPR12Testing Age
(Days) A B C AVG.
14 5257 5893 5264 547128 5824 5035 5633 549756 6573 6375 5373 610791 6323 6598 5689 6203
182 6351 6072 5871 6098364 6562 5320 7732 6538
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
MIX CPR13
Testing Age(Days) A B C AVG.
14 5710 6065 5927 590128 6425 6432 6705 652156 7550 7398 6725 722491 7625 7392 6862 7293
182 7940 7314 7421 7558364 8258 7996 7879 8044
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
MIX CPR15Testing Age
(Days) A B C AVG.
14 4036 3275 3904 373828 5069 4633 3768 449056 5826 4982 4961 525691 6208 5309 5871 5796
182 6070 6151 6709 6310364 6094 6614 6673 6460
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
MIX CPR16
Testing Age(Days) A B C AVG.
14 5926 6448 5792 605528 6388 5629 6303 610756 6942 7645 6761 711691 7658 6427 7687 7257
182 7674 8234 7854 7921364 7533 7904 8683 8040
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
MIX CPR17Testing Age
(Days) A B C AVG.
14 6241 5525 7198 632128 7052 7056 7612 724056 7926 7986 7979 796491 8024 8284 8345 8218
182 9808 9678 8409 9298364 10314 10308 10425 10349
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
MIX CPR18
Testing Age(Days) A B C AVG.
14 5835 6126 6792 625128 6709 6934 6962 686856 7163 6954 8076 739891 8112 8196 8211 8173
182 9137 8634 8747 8839364 8644 9366 9370 9127
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
MIX CPR20Testing Age
(Days) A B C AVG.
14 8889 8976 8987 895128 10125 9521 9510 971956 10116 11309 10036 1048791 11368 10708 11696 11257
182 12044 11159 11383 11529364 12337 11634 11221 11731
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
MIX CPR21
Testing Age(Days) A B C AVG.
14 5298 5697 5601 553228 5940 6252 6112 610156 7138 7707 7209 735191 7396 8691 7512 7866
182 8910 8333 8294 8512364 8689 9270 8691 8883
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)
145
CPR1-W/C=0.49, Plain564 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
CPR2-W/C=0.35, Plain752 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
CPR3-W/C=0.45, Plain
752 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
CPR4-W/C=0.28, 20%FA, 8%SF900 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
CPR5-W/C=0.35, 20%FA752 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
CPR6-W/C=0.35, 12%CFA752 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
CPR7-W/C=0.35, 8%SF752 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
CPR8-W/C=0.35, 20%FA, 8%SF 752 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
Figure B-1. Concrete Compression Strength Graphs.
146
CPR9-W/C=0.35, 10%Meta752 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
CPR10-W/C=0.35, 10% Meta, 20% FA752 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
CPR11-W/C=0.35, 50%Slag752 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
CPR12-W/C=0.35, 4.5CN752 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
CPR13-W/C=0.45, Plain 569.7 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
CPR15-W/C=0.29, 20%FA 565 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
CPR16-W/C=0.33, 18%FA 807.4 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
CPR17-W/C=0.34, 18%FA 840 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
Figure B-1. Continued.
147
CPR18-W/C=0.30, 20%FA 842 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
CPR20-W/C=0.28, 20%FA 1000 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
CPR21-W/C=0.29, 18%FA 935 lb Cementitious
3000
6000
9000
12000
14 28 56 91 182 364Age (Days)
Stre
ngth
(psi)
Figure B-1. Continued.
148
APPENDIX C LABORATORY LONG-TERM CHLORIDE PENETRATION TEST (BULK DIFFUSION)
DATA AND ANALYSIS RESULTS
Table C-1. Initial Chloride Background Level of Concrete Mixtures. Initial Chloride Background Level (lb/yd3)
Mixture Name Sample A Sample B Sample C Average
Standard Deviation
Coefficient of Variation (%)
CPR1 0.112 0.149 0.137 0.133 0.019 14 CPR2 0.097 0.053 0.087 0.079 0.023 29 CPR3 0.093 0.136 0.145 0.125 0.028 22 CPR4 0.192 0.130 0.130 0.151 0.036 24 CPR5 0.181 0.112 0.126 0.140 0.036 26 CPR6 0.097 0.114 0.110 0.107 0.009 8 CPR7 0.284 0.204 0.212 0.233 0.044 19 CPR8 0.077 0.111 0.101 0.096 0.017 18 CPR9 0.070 0.076 0.080 0.075 0.005 7 CPR10 0.087 0.070 0.066 0.074 0.011 15 CPR11 0.146 0.209 0.200 0.185 0.034 18 CPR12 0.147 0.139 0.136 0.141 0.006 4 CPR13 0.181 0.174 0.178 0.178 0.004 2 CPR15 0.467 0.546 0.533 0.515 0.042 8 CPR16 0.124 0.130 0.125 0.126 0.003 3 CPR17 0.187 0.212 0.139 0.179 0.037 21 CPR18 0.221 0.274 0.281 0.259 0.033 13 CPR20 0.146 0.100 0.112 0.119 0.024 20 CPR21 0.323 0.286 0.338 0.316 0.027 8
149
Table C-2. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Chloride Profile Testing Results. MIX CPR1
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 34.545 38.941 36.229 36.5720.25 - 0.50 26.321 29.105 23.789 26.4050.50 - 0.75 23.144 21.452 21.007 21.8680.75 - 1.0 17.010 18.183 18.610 17.9341.0 - 1.25 14.090 14.491 13.567 14.0491.25 - 1.5 12.543 11.26 10.128 11.3101.5 - 1.75 9.394 9.119 8.519 9.0111.75 - 2.0 6.883 6.768 6.285 6.6452.0 - 2.25 5.741 4.512 4.169 4.8072.25 - 2.5 4.962 3.346 2.783 3.6972.5 - 2.75 4.417 2.206 1.693 2.7722.75 - 3.0 3.858 1.351 0.992 2.067
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR2
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 39.658 42.397 39.408 40.4880.25 - 0.50 24.826 27.064 27.004 26.2980.50 - 0.75 16.312 17.004 15.944 16.4200.75 - 1.0 8.230 10.622 10.422 9.7581.0 - 1.25 2.457 3.732 5.092 3.7601.25 - 1.5 0.597 1.149 1.575 1.1071.5 - 1.75 0.203 0.449 0.406 0.3531.75 - 2.0 0.208 0.442 0.261 0.3042.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR3
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 46.106 48.040 46.615 46.9200.25 - 0.50 30.350 35.387 33.338 33.0250.50 - 0.75 23.419 22.518 22.259 22.7320.75 - 1.0 18.898 17.604 18.464 18.3221.0 - 1.25 12.992 14.951 13.151 13.6981.25 - 1.5 9.483 9.737 8.800 9.3401.5 - 1.75 6.724 5.864 5.611 6.0661.75 - 2.0 4.326 3.502 3.011 3.6132.0 - 2.25 2.188 2.098 1.214 1.8332.25 - 2.5 1.005 1.225 0.506 0.9122.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR4
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 38.985 42.387 35.510 38.9610.25 - 0.50 17.066 16.198 14.251 15.8380.50 - 0.75 3.553 3.701 3.363 3.5390.75 - 1.0 0.861 0.966 1.195 1.0071.0 - 1.25 0.524 0.475 0.554 0.5181.25 - 1.5 0.338 0.369 0.348 0.3521.5 - 1.75 0.365 0.380 0.314 0.3531.75 - 2.0 0.297 0.306 0.285 0.2962.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR5
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 38.780 40.827 41.401 40.3360.25 - 0.50 27.843 29.107 24.517 27.1560.50 - 0.75 13.999 18.215 15.873 16.0290.75 - 1.0 7.220 9.060 10.595 8.9581.0 - 1.25 3.955 5.210 7.267 5.4771.25 - 1.5 2.644 3.287 5.609 3.8471.5 - 1.75 2.475 3.224 4.141 3.2801.75 - 2.0 2.131 2.888 4.202 3.0742.0 - 2.25 2.616 3.267 4.375 3.4192.25 - 2.5 2.420 2.952 4.131 3.1682.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR6
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 46.150 50.752 52.240 49.7140.25 - 0.50 33.319 35.785 33.166 34.0900.50 - 0.75 21.566 22.170 20.228 21.3210.75 - 1.0 12.985 11.790 12.543 12.4391.0 - 1.25 5.993 4.713 5.547 5.4181.25 - 1.5 2.060 1.480 1.623 1.7211.5 - 1.75 0.607 0.551 0.513 0.5571.75 - 2.0 0.423 0.341 0.350 0.3712.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
150
Table C-2. Continued. MIX CPR7
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 43.899 43.250 45.915 44.3550.25 - 0.50 22.238 25.091 20.441 22.5900.50 - 0.75 11.418 9.791 8.095 9.7680.75 - 1.0 4.154 2.405 2.653 3.0711.0 - 1.25 1.083 0.995 0.540 0.8731.25 - 1.5 0.436 0.520 0.322 0.4261.5 - 1.75 0.296 0.418 0.276 0.3301.75 - 2.0 0.321 0.350 0.257 0.3092.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR8
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 43.411 52.654 47.410 47.8250.25 - 0.50 26.436 33.023 31.477 30.3120.50 - 0.75 10.189 15.293 17.026 14.1690.75 - 1.0 2.072 4.142 7.735 4.6501.0 - 1.25 0.444 0.780 2.201 1.1421.25 - 1.5 0.285 0.277 0.485 0.3491.5 - 1.75 0.261 0.328 0.323 0.3041.75 - 2.0 0.230 0.246 0.254 0.2432.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR9
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 48.113 45.023 56.627 49.9210.25 - 0.50 14.635 17.553 22.058 18.0820.50 - 0.75 1.920 4.008 5.600 3.8430.75 - 1.0 0.309 0.757 1.258 0.7751.0 - 1.25 0.173 0.295 0.318 0.2621.25 - 1.5 0.156 0.252 0.264 0.2241.5 - 1.75 0.226 0.255 0.260 0.2471.75 - 2.0 0.193 0.233 0.287 0.2382.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR10
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 45.224 37.533 41.907 41.5550.25 - 0.50 25.403 22.540 29.947 25.9630.50 - 0.75 9.655 9.029 9.319 9.3340.75 - 1.0 3.648 2.556 2.318 2.8411.0 - 1.25 1.001 0.697 0.569 0.7561.25 - 1.5 0.629 0.332 0.239 0.4001.5 - 1.75 0.396 0.343 0.267 0.3351.75 - 2.0 0.297 0.197 0.252 0.2492.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR11
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 44.076 58.043 48.732 50.2840.25 - 0.50 30.684 34.266 36.170 33.7070.50 - 0.75 14.201 10.895 13.385 12.8270.75 - 1.0 3.512 2.216 6.459 4.0621.0 - 1.25 0.509 0.777 1.621 0.9691.25 - 1.5 0.254 0.257 0.888 0.4661.5 - 1.75 0.262 0.224 0.321 0.2691.75 - 2.0 0.242 0.273 0.244 0.2532.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR12
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 69.233 49.494 57.569 58.7650.25 - 0.50 40.869 32.618 31.393 34.9600.50 - 0.75 29.825 26.071 25.373 27.0900.75 - 1.0 20.954 18.914 19.066 19.6451.0 - 1.25 15.925 13.838 12.720 14.1611.25 - 1.5 8.291 8.149 6.450 7.6301.5 - 1.75 4.341 1.584 2.119 2.6811.75 - 2.0 1.801 0.279 0.422 0.8342.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
151
Table C-2. Continued. MIX CPR13
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 43.625 50.518 53.273 49.1390.25 - 0.50 32.307 35.405 35.104 34.2720.50 - 0.75 25.692 22.104 28.521 25.4390.75 - 1.0 23.628 18.670 22.457 21.5851.0 - 1.25 14.022 15.142 13.773 14.3121.25 - 1.5 9.532 9.368 9.182 9.3611.5 - 1.75 5.203 6.037 5.750 5.6631.75 - 2.0 2.839 3.341 2.915 3.0322.0 - 2.25 1.150 1.266 0.740 1.0522.25 - 2.5 0.747 0.953 0.660 0.7872.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR15
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 46.511 53.907 53.385 51.2680.25 - 0.50 37.704 47.275 41.115 42.0310.50 - 0.75 32.423 17.389 16.610 22.1410.75 - 1.0 24.999 11.275 12.845 16.3731.0 - 1.25 10.027 7.656 9.560 9.0811.25 - 1.5 5.243 3.889 4.210 4.4471.5 - 1.75 1.956 2.185 2.929 2.3571.75 - 2.0 0.853 1.379 1.210 1.1472.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR16
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 51.166 44.492 37.763 44.4740.25 - 0.50 33.770 31.682 27.849 31.1000.50 - 0.75 26.831 21.832 18.556 22.4060.75 - 1.0 17.011 12.563 12.231 13.9351.0 - 1.25 5.372 6.033 4.443 5.2831.25 - 1.5 2.526 3.360 2.343 2.7431.5 - 1.75 0.730 1.438 1.163 1.1101.75 - 2.0 0.552 0.883 1.111 0.8492.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR17
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 25.271 23.579 22.050 23.6330.25 - 0.50 14.685 16.791 15.539 15.6720.50 - 0.75 9.357 10.492 9.782 9.8770.75 - 1.0 2.395 6.113 4.634 4.3811.0 - 1.25 0.818 5.194 2.314 2.7751.25 - 1.5 0.318 1.786 0.740 0.9481.5 - 1.75 0.315 0.585 0.368 0.4231.75 - 2.0 0.272 0.360 0.478 0.3702.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR18
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 23.175 23.337 25.515 24.0090.25 - 0.50 17.438 15.201 17.456 16.6980.50 - 0.75 2.444 3.556 5.027 3.6760.75 - 1.0 1.471 1.728 1.353 1.5171.0 - 1.25 0.554 0.525 0.546 0.5421.25 - 1.5 0.537 0.513 0.489 0.5131.5 - 1.75 0.500 0.514 0.453 0.4891.75 - 2.0 0.475 0.486 0.451 0.4712.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR20
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 21.321 22.307 21.288 21.6390.25 - 0.50 13.299 13.693 10.158 12.3830.50 - 0.75 6.956 4.668 3.236 4.9530.75 - 1.0 3.511 2.889 1.052 2.4841.0 - 1.25 1.143 0.432 0.270 0.6151.25 - 1.5 0.683 0.277 0.872 0.6111.5 - 1.75 0.390 0.305 0.278 0.3241.75 - 2.0 0.386 0.233 0.317 0.3122.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
152
Table C-2. Continued. MIX CPR21
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 32.782 24.576 25.698 27.6850.25 - 0.50 22.953 20.168 13.717 18.9460.50 - 0.75 5.269 8.619 3.701 5.8630.75 - 1.0 0.937 2.435 1.234 1.5351.0 - 1.25 0.401 0.467 0.369 0.4121.25 - 1.5 0.416 0.328 0.304 0.3491.5 - 1.75 0.318 0.313 0.335 0.3221.75 - 2.0 0.455 0.345 0.326 0.3752.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
153
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR1 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.245E-11 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.133Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 34.385 Sum(Error)^2 22.047
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR1 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.661E-11 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.133Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 39.102 Sum(Error)^2 23.577
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR1 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.735E-11 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.133Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 35.500 Sum(Error)^2 29.996
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR2 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.050E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.079Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 46.835 Sum(Error)^2 4.801
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR2 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.433E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.079Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 49.390 Sum(Error)^2 4.615
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR2 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.863E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.079Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 45.930 Sum(Error)^2 2.434
Figure C-1. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Regression Analysis.
154
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR3 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.064E-11 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.125Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 47.345 Sum(Error)^2 32.245
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR3 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 9.738E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.125Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 51.026 Sum(Error)^2 32.624
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR3 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 9.440E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.125Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 49.637 Sum(Error)^2 21.269
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR4 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.345E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.151Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 53.651 Sum(Error)^2 2.183
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR4 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.175E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.151Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 59.521 Sum(Error)^2 0.362
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR4 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.254E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.151Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 49.262 Sum(Error)^2 0.594
Figure C-1. Continued.
155
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR5 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.222E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.140Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 46.474 Sum(Error)^2 25.196
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR5 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.255E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.140Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 47.442 Sum(Error)^2 29.211
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR5 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.948E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.140Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 44.192 Sum(Error)^2 80.317
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR6 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.374E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.107Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 54.147 Sum(Error)^2 3.729
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR6 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.637E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.107Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 60.405 Sum(Error)^2 4.615
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR6 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.378E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.107Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 60.744 Sum(Error)^2 5.089
Figure C-1. Continued.
156
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR7 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.299E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.233Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 54.787 Sum(Error)^2 3.243
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR7 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.255E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.233Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 55.418 Sum(Error)^2 4.376
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR7 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.656E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.233Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 60.326 Sum(Error)^2 1.686
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR8 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.351E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.096Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 55.771 Sum(Error)^2 9.722
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR8 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.729E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.096Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 66.298 Sum(Error)^2 10.296
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR8 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.562E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.096Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 57.763 Sum(Error)^2 3.753
Figure C-1. Continued.
157
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR9 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 8.766E-13 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.075Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 71.946 Sum(Error)^2 0.343
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR9 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.206E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.075Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 62.979 Sum(Error)^2 0.304
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR9 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.232E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.075Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 78.792 Sum(Error)^2 0.217
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR10 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.251E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.074Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 57.641 Sum(Error)^2 2.087
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR10 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.425E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.074Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 47.788 Sum(Error)^2 3.795
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR10 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.587E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.074Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 54.601 Sum(Error)^2 40.766
Figure C-1. Continued.
158
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR11 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.994E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.185Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 55.913 Sum(Error)^2 23.644
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR11 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.100E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.185Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 75.667 Sum(Error)^2 20.332
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR11 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.151E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.185Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 61.852 Sum(Error)^2 41.728
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR12 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 6.644E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.141Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 73.541 Sum(Error)^2 87.970
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR12 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 8.406E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.141Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 53.329 Sum(Error)^2 34.381
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR12 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 6.622E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.141Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 60.400 Sum(Error)^2 92.280
Figure C-1. Continued.
159
0 20 40 60 80 1000
20
40
60
80CPR13 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (mm)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.170E-11 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.178Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 47.348 Sum(Error)^2 25.547
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR13 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 9.155E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.178Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 53.144 Sum(Error)^2 46.819
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR13 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 9.404E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.178Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 56.449 Sum(Error)^2 30.478
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR15 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 6.306E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.515Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 59.443 Sum(Error)^2 1.443
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR15 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.452E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.515Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 67.260 Sum(Error)^2 129.612
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR15 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.656E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.515Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 63.426 Sum(Error)^2 69.269
Figure C-1. Continued.
160
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR16 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.829E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.126Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 58.558 Sum(Error)^2 32.588
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR16 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.723E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.126Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 51.562 Sum(Error)^2 1.914
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR16 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.851E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.126Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 44.124 Sum(Error)^2 6.116
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR17 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.027E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.179Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 30.835 Sum(Error)^2 4.053
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR17 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.729E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.179Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 27.014 Sum(Error)^2 2.928
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR17 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.526E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.179Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 26.301 Sum(Error)^2 1.103
Figure C-1. Continued.
161
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR18 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.231E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.259Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 31.105 Sum(Error)^2 31.462
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR18 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.169E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.259Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 30.618 Sum(Error)^2 10.314
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR18 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.366E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.259Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 33.343 Sum(Error)^2 13.152
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR20 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.330E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.119Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 25.791 Sum(Error)^2 0.225
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR20 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.490E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.119Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 28.249 Sum(Error)^2 3.121
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR20 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.662E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.119Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 28.176 Sum(Error)^2 0.717
Figure C-1. Continued.
162
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR21 (Sample A) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.212E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.316Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 43.569 Sum(Error)^2 34.620
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR21 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.361E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.316Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 31.820 Sum(Error)^2 22.834
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR21 (Sample C) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.756E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.316Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 34.043 Sum(Error)^2 2.471
Figure C-1. Continued.
163
Table C-3. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Chloride Profile Testing Results. MIX CPR1
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 45.278 33.452 34.588 37.7730.25 - 0.50 38.017 35.226 34.828 36.0240.50 - 0.75 37.825 33.214 28.138 33.0590.75 - 1.0 26.818 27.243 28.077 27.3791.0 - 1.25 27.616 26.474 22.327 25.4721.25 - 1.5 24.401 25.658 14.609 21.5561.5 - 1.75 24.728 22.339 20.012 22.3601.75 - 2.0 21.513 17.235 19.116 19.2882.0 - 2.25 19.501 14.146 14.477 16.0412.25 - 2.5 17.308 13.994 12.994 14.7652.5 - 2.75 17.812 12.696 12.880 14.4632.75 - 3.0 10.401 11.258 11.358 11.0063.0 - 3.25 13.905 10.252 8.386 10.8483.25 - 3.5 12.947 8.306 6.849 9.3673.5 - 4.0 12.709 - 8.006 10.358
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR2
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 37.154 39.357 42.339 39.6170.25 - 0.50 27.537 29.155 34.621 30.4380.50 - 0.75 23.160 25.107 27.150 25.1390.75 - 1.0 16.862 19.349 20.440 18.8841.0 - 1.25 14.387 12.610 15.927 14.3081.25 - 1.5 9.829 10.459 13.710 11.3331.5 - 1.75 10.340 5.863 8.575 8.2591.75 - 2.0 - 5.697 4.866 5.2822.0 - 2.25 4.130 1.298 - 2.7142.25 - 2.5 1.981 0.844 - 1.4132.5 - 2.75 1.146 0.917 - 1.0322.75 - 3.0 0.607 0.773 - 0.6903.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR3
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 30.180 41.429 36.779 36.1290.25 - 0.50 28.312 34.038 30.973 31.1080.50 - 0.75 21.316 29.453 25.809 25.5260.75 - 1.0 20.950 25.212 22.980 23.0471.0 - 1.25 13.411 18.944 21.055 17.8031.25 - 1.5 15.245 15.550 19.729 16.8411.5 - 1.75 11.003 13.631 14.762 13.1321.75 - 2.0 9.063 11.477 13.927 11.4892.0 - 2.25 8.265 8.165 10.256 8.8952.25 - 2.5 5.523 7.706 9.120 7.4502.5 - 2.75 3.916 5.431 7.437 5.5952.75 - 3.0 1.531 3.156 5.436 3.3743.0 - 3.25 1.351 2.584 3.425 2.4533.25 - 3.5 1.175 1.697 2.363 1.7453.5 - 4.0 1.214 1.319 1.474 1.336
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR4
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 36.046 41.032 34.361 37.1460.25 - 0.50 22.629 23.515 17.399 21.1810.50 - 0.75 14.121 11.295 5.292 10.2360.75 - 1.0 5.975 3.172 2.386 3.8441.0 - 1.25 1.317 1.371 0.482 1.0571.25 - 1.5 - 1.357 0.576 0.9671.5 - 1.75 0.385 0.371 0.466 0.4071.75 - 2.0 0.368 0.856 0.372 0.5322.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR5
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 42.960 39.266 42.149 41.4580.25 - 0.50 28.962 38.666 29.563 32.3970.50 - 0.75 24.604 22.811 23.244 23.5530.75 - 1.0 15.365 12.896 12.387 13.5491.0 - 1.25 5.200 5.711 8.140 6.3501.25 - 1.5 2.083 2.537 3.222 2.6141.5 - 1.75 1.534 2.113 1.791 1.8131.75 - 2.0 1.168 2.039 1.756 1.6542.0 - 2.25 1.295 1.360 1.621 1.4252.25 - 2.5 1.452 1.206 1.546 1.4012.5 - 2.75 1.789 1.531 1.791 1.7042.75 - 3.0 1.877 1.642 2.041 1.8533.0 - 3.25 2.059 2.730 1.719 2.1693.25 - 3.5 1.884 2.470 2.030 2.1283.5 - 4.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR6
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 38.232 39.903 43.053 40.3960.25 - 0.50 33.886 34.925 34.932 34.5810.50 - 0.75 27.434 29.759 28.634 28.6090.75 - 1.0 15.267 21.663 21.051 19.3271.0 - 1.25 13.720 13.355 13.408 13.4941.25 - 1.5 9.621 8.028 8.831 8.8271.5 - 1.75 5.210 2.932 4.416 4.1861.75 - 2.0 2.309 1.367 1.681 1.7862.0 - 2.25 0.656 0.274 0.598 0.5092.25 - 2.5 0.349 0.285 0.612 0.4152.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
164
Table C-3. Continued. MIX CPR7
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 37.602 35.221 36.545 36.4560.25 - 0.50 25.020 26.580 22.891 24.8300.50 - 0.75 21.457 20.615 15.849 19.3070.75 - 1.0 9.612 12.823 11.790 11.4081.0 - 1.25 4.064 5.054 7.054 5.3911.25 - 1.5 0.886 0.975 2.702 1.5211.5 - 1.75 0.466 0.268 0.440 0.3911.75 - 2.0 0.291 0.254 0.202 0.2492.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR8
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 36.681 35.872 37.243 36.5990.25 - 0.50 31.887 26.630 28.037 28.8510.50 - 0.75 24.104 25.113 21.110 23.4420.75 - 1.0 17.647 15.455 14.300 15.8011.0 - 1.25 9.109 7.672 8.621 8.4671.25 - 1.5 3.162 2.094 1.698 2.3181.5 - 1.75 0.615 0.480 0.406 0.5001.75 - 2.0 0.240 0.255 0.296 0.2642.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR9
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 39.434 49.439 45.287 44.7200.25 - 0.50 30.800 30.579 28.557 29.9790.50 - 0.75 18.881 18.325 18.288 18.4980.75 - 1.0 9.913 8.528 9.834 9.4251.0 - 1.25 1.903 3.119 3.735 2.9191.25 - 1.5 0.761 1.551 0.722 1.0111.5 - 1.75 0.316 0.759 0.422 0.4991.75 - 2.0 0.294 0.212 0.395 0.3002.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR10
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 43.994 39.019 41.456 41.4900.25 - 0.50 38.626 35.126 35.993 36.5820.50 - 0.75 22.472 22.847 26.470 23.9300.75 - 1.0 22.922 13.241 14.800 16.9881.0 - 1.25 2.251 5.591 6.117 4.6531.25 - 1.5 0.552 0.604 1.337 0.8311.5 - 1.75 0.263 0.303 0.204 0.2571.75 - 2.0 0.173 0.720 0.310 0.4012.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR11
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 50.261 42.966 53.800 49.0090.25 - 0.50 38.149 44.938 38.003 40.3630.50 - 0.75 29.264 26.989 23.563 26.6050.75 - 1.0 19.071 19.626 16.032 18.2431.0 - 1.25 10.176 11.156 7.755 9.6961.25 - 1.5 2.532 4.770 1.961 3.0881.5 - 1.75 0.603 0.990 0.450 0.6811.75 - 2.0 0.235 0.162 0.390 0.2622.0 - 2.25 - - - -2.25 - 2.5 - - - -2.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR12
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 47.519 36.716 44.526 42.9200.25 - 0.50 30.467 24.307 33.428 29.4010.50 - 0.75 26.049 22.354 25.778 24.7270.75 - 1.0 24.141 18.097 24.907 22.3821.0 - 1.25 20.604 19.309 21.900 20.6041.25 - 1.5 11.860 19.183 18.654 16.5661.5 - 1.75 11.790 17.116 13.320 14.0751.75 - 2.0 12.301 16.036 13.351 13.8962.0 - 2.25 7.340 11.693 12.555 10.5292.25 - 2.5 9.698 8.211 10.170 9.3602.5 - 2.75 6.666 5.572 7.173 6.4702.75 - 3.0 5.368 4.447 5.200 5.0053.0 - 3.25 1.820 3.661 4.153 3.2113.25 - 3.5 0.740 1.865 1.752 1.4523.5 - 4.0 0.508 2.560 0.936 1.335
NaCl (lb/yd3)
165
Table C-3. Continued. MIX CPR13
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 34.930 33.659 36.597 35.0620.25 - 0.50 29.764 30.213 32.687 30.8880.50 - 0.75 28.128 26.011 26.826 26.9880.75 - 1.0 23.025 22.113 23.230 22.7891.0 - 1.25 20.798 18.833 20.670 20.1001.25 - 1.5 18.275 16.903 16.829 17.3361.5 - 1.75 16.273 14.012 15.173 15.1531.75 - 2.0 14.508 13.162 12.891 13.5202.0 - 2.25 14.764 13.859 12.889 13.8372.25 - 2.5 14.579 13.890 12.099 13.5232.5 - 2.75 14.287 14.664 10.597 13.1832.75 - 3.0 12.319 11.382 9.227 10.9763.0 - 3.25 11.493 9.532 5.952 8.9923.25 - 3.5 10.303 7.997 6.558 8.2863.5 - 4.0 9.078 6.700 5.017 6.932
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR15
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 25.830 34.635 36.062 32.1760.25 - 0.50 22.799 30.031 31.169 28.0000.50 - 0.75 20.588 29.284 29.640 26.5040.75 - 1.0 20.337 28.959 24.304 24.5331.0 - 1.25 15.978 19.974 22.326 19.4261.25 - 1.5 12.256 18.060 19.882 16.7331.5 - 1.75 8.534 13.630 14.740 12.3011.75 - 2.0 6.896 11.755 11.020 9.8902.0 - 2.25 - 5.861 7.455 6.6582.25 - 2.5 - 3.889 6.594 5.2422.5 - 2.75 - 3.536 4.457 3.9972.75 - 3.0 - 3.087 4.608 3.8483.0 - 3.25 - 3.522 4.484 4.0033.25 - 3.5 - 3.459 4.731 4.0953.5 - 4.0 - 4.688 5.851 5.270
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR16
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 46.394 39.542 40.104 42.0130.25 - 0.50 33.459 32.955 33.203 33.2060.50 - 0.75 28.506 23.568 25.585 25.8860.75 - 1.0 21.678 13.284 19.108 18.0231.0 - 1.25 13.546 7.706 13.506 11.5861.25 - 1.5 8.632 4.968 7.104 6.9011.5 - 1.75 4.026 3.091 3.773 3.6301.75 - 2.0 1.387 1.320 2.324 1.6772.0 - 2.25 - - 1.322 1.3222.25 - 2.5 - - 0.882 0.8822.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR17
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 43.951 45.944 51.951 47.2820.25 - 0.50 35.440 37.455 44.942 39.2790.50 - 0.75 25.867 28.429 28.558 27.6180.75 - 1.0 16.003 18.825 21.209 18.6791.0 - 1.25 8.010 5.838 17.922 10.5901.25 - 1.5 2.813 1.584 7.898 4.0981.5 - 1.75 0.770 0.469 2.625 1.2881.75 - 2.0 0.442 0.293 1.209 0.6482.0 - 2.25 0.309 0.306 0.453 0.3562.25 - 2.5 0.359 0.317 0.327 0.3342.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR18
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 34.944 29.519 43.414 35.9590.25 - 0.50 36.966 30.591 35.498 34.3520.50 - 0.75 28.346 26.119 21.906 25.4570.75 - 1.0 9.759 11.017 6.781 9.1861.0 - 1.25 3.010 2.713 1.731 2.4851.25 - 1.5 0.557 0.624 0.526 0.5691.5 - 1.75 0.425 0.485 0.409 0.4401.75 - 2.0 0.535 0.644 0.659 0.6132.0 - 2.25 0.644 0.426 0.329 0.4662.25 - 2.5 0.529 0.458 0.387 0.4582.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX CPR20
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 41.525 49.320 58.420 49.7550.25 - 0.50 33.760 37.401 39.894 37.0180.50 - 0.75 26.664 26.421 27.469 26.8510.75 - 1.0 17.167 13.624 15.999 15.5971.0 - 1.25 11.977 6.043 6.853 8.2911.25 - 1.5 6.402 2.083 2.079 3.5211.5 - 1.75 1.775 0.878 0.564 1.0721.75 - 2.0 0.913 0.848 0.500 0.7542.0 - 2.25 0.221 0.180 0.209 0.2032.25 - 2.5 0.143 0.171 0.164 0.1592.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
166
Table C-3. Continued. MIX CPR21
Depth(in.) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 36.265 51.995 38.738 42.3330.25 - 0.50 32.551 41.476 31.858 35.2950.50 - 0.75 18.981 25.400 15.377 19.9190.75 - 1.0 5.263 6.456 4.530 5.4161.0 - 1.25 2.084 2.411 1.513 2.0031.25 - 1.5 0.729 0.554 0.722 0.6681.5 - 1.75 0.471 0.560 0.582 0.5381.75 - 2.0 0.554 0.889 0.596 0.6802.0 - 2.25 0.459 0.379 0.463 0.4342.25 - 2.5 0.473 0.428 0.414 0.4382.5 - 2.75 - - - -2.75 - 3.0 - - - -3.0 - 3.25 - - - -3.25 - 3.5 - - - -3.5 - 4.0 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
167
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR1 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.983E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.133Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 42.142 Sum(Error)^2 111.39
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR1 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.537E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.133Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 37.922 Sum(Error)^2 34.265
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR1 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.415E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.133Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 35.642 Sum(Error)^2 78.827
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR2 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.371E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.079Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 38.149 Sum(Error)^2 19.129
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR2 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.383E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.079Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 42.069 Sum(Error)^2 12.811
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR2 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.034E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.079Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 45.607 Sum(Error)^2 6.129
Figure C-2. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficient Regression Analysis.
168
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR3 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 9.706E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.125Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 32.424 Sum(Error)^2 24.778
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR3 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 8.962E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.125Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 42.464 Sum(Error)^2 12.215
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR3 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.323E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.125Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 36.961 Sum(Error)^2 16.389
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR4 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.212E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.151Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 43.308 Sum(Error)^2 3.777
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR4 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 8.501E-13 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.151Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 51.303 Sum(Error)^2 2.647
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR4 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.998E-13 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.151Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 45.051 Sum(Error)^2 1.928
Figure C-2. Continued.
169
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR5 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.160E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.140Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 48.987 Sum(Error)^2 46.661
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR5 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.240E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.140Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 49.661 Sum(Error)^2 94.298
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR5 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.224E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.140Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 47.854 Sum(Error)^2 24.127
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR6 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.806E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.107Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 44.462 Sum(Error)^2 29.179
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR6 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.711E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.107Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 47.510 Sum(Error)^2 47.238
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR6 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.606E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.107Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 49.098 Sum(Error)^2 15.013
Figure C-2. Continued.
170
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR7 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.796E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.233Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 43.873 Sum(Error)^2 27.617
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR7 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.126E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.233Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 41.652 Sum(Error)^2 23.136
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR7 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.951E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.233Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 40.450 Sum(Error)^2 13.613
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR8 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.850E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.096Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 44.198 Sum(Error)^2 40.838
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR8 (Sample B) 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.683E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.096Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 41.879 Sum(Error)^2 49.509
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR8 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.402E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.096Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 43.106 Sum(Error)^2 17.445
Figure C-2. Continued.
171
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR9 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.601E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.075Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 48.341 Sum(Error)^2 23.642
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR9 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.227E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.075Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 58.918 Sum(Error)^2 1.641
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR9 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.392E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.075Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 53.198 Sum(Error)^2 3.818
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR10 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (mm)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.168E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.074Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 54.117 Sum(Error)^2 157.50
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR10 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.108E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.074Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 48.665 Sum(Error)^2 52.531
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR10 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.172E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.074Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 51.317 Sum(Error)^2 67.296
Figure C-2. Continued.
172
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR11 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.346E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.185Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 58.649 Sum(Error)^2 31.993
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR11 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.785E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.185Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 54.684 Sum(Error)^2 115.51
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR11 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.776E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.185Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 62.573 Sum(Error)^2 8.648
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR12 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 8.174E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.141Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 43.146 Sum(Error)^2 141.87
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR12 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.505E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.141Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 32.824 Sum(Error)^2 106.19
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR12 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.121E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.141Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 41.576 Sum(Error)^2 70.944
Figure C-2. Continued.
173
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR13 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.179E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.178Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 32.031 Sum(Error)^2 62.519
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR13 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.681E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.178Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 31.344 Sum(Error)^2 75.405
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR13 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.765E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.178Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 35.485 Sum(Error)^2 41.517
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR15 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.004E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.515Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 28.404 Sum(Error)^2 14.883
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR15 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.001E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.515Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 38.815 Sum(Error)^2 70.888
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR15 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.139E-11 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.515Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 38.552 Sum(Error)^2 39.657
Figure C-2. Continued.
174
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR16 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.426E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.126Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 50.868 Sum(Error)^2 18.967
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR16 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.527E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.126Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 46.620 Sum(Error)^2 13.162
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR16 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.570E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.126Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 45.735 Sum(Error)^2 9.054
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR17 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.305E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.179Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 52.297 Sum(Error)^2 23.848
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR17 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.265E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.179Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 55.521 Sum(Error)^2 66.084
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR17 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.013E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.179Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 60.245 Sum(Error)^2 45.841
Figure C-2. Continued.
175
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR18 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.165E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.259Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 47.266 Sum(Error)^2 196.58
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR18 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.412E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.259Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 39.726 Sum(Error)^2 151.98
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR18 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.459E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.259Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 54.786 Sum(Error)^2 62.999
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR20 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.004E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.119Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 48.184 Sum(Error)^2 17.569
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR20 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.891E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.119Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 58.766 Sum(Error)^2 19.541
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR20 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.730E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.119Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 68.012 Sum(Error)^2 9.173
Figure C-2. Continued.
176
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR21 (Sample A) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.517E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.316Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 46.782 Sum(Error)^2 73.470
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR21 (Sample B) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.384E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.316Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 65.549 Sum(Error)^2 86.231
0 1 2 3 40
20
40
60
80CPR21 (Sample C) 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
Depth (mm)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.246E-12 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.316Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 49.553 Sum(Error)^2 48.177
Figure C-2. Continued.
177
APPENDIX D FIELD CORE SAMPLING DATA AND ANALYSIS RESULTS
Table D-1. Initial Chloride Background Level of Cored Samples. Initial Chloride Samples (lb/yd3)
Bridge Name Lab. # A B C Average
5016 - - - 0.547(a)
5017 0.515 0.514 0.570 0.533
Hurricane Pass (HPB)
5018 0.529 0.594 0.560 0.561
5054 0.426 0.483 0.492 0.467 Broadway Replacement (BRB) 5081 0.843 0.904 0.828 0.858(b)
5082 0.435 0.508 0.458 0.467 Seabreeze West Bound (SWB) 5083 0.390 0.441 0.465 0.432
Granada (GRB) 5084 0.669 0.649 0.594 0.637
5078 0.550 0.574 0.544 0.556
5079 0.423 0.420 0.427 0.423
Turkey Creek (TCB)
5080 0.414 0.415 0.423 0.417
5075 0.623 0.609 0.609 0.614
5076 0.445 0.423 0.427 0.432
New Roosevelt (NRB)
5077 0.332 0.407 0.408 0.382 (a) Initial Chlorides were not tested for this sample. An average between Lab sample# 5017 and 5018 was
reported.
(b) Initial Chloride value was considered an erroneous value (too high). The value of initial chlorides from Lab sample# 5054 was used.
178
Table D-2. Chloride Profile Testing Results of Cored Samples. Bridge Hurricane (HPB)Lab # 5016
Depth(in) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.25 13.327 13.285 13.452 13.3550.25 - 0.50 3.110 3.512 3.555 3.3920.50 - 0.75 2.155 2.201 2.176 2.1770.75 - 1.0 0.677 0.688 0.687 0.6841.0 - 1.25 0.564 0.490 0.495 0.516
1.25 - 1.50 0.440 0.441 0.422 0.4341.50 - 1.75 0.357 0.341 0.349 0.3491.75 - 2.0 0.373 0.435 0.360 0.3892.0 - 2.25 0.349 0.350 0.345 0.348
NaCl (lb/yd3)
Bridge Hurricane (HPB)Lab # 5017
Depth(in) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.08 32.329 32.186 31.936 32.1500.08 - 0.16 33.485 33.629 32.969 33.3610.16 - 0.24 26.499 26.952 26.844 26.7650.24 - 0.32 22.561 22.301 22.305 22.3890.32 - 0.40 20.412 20.575 20.585 20.5240.40 - 0.48 15.275 15.260 15.259 15.2650.48 - 0.72 7.910 8.005 8.149 8.0210.72 - 0.97 2.766 2.737 2.774 2.7590.97 - 1.22 0.773 0.795 0.802 0.7901.22 - 1.47 0.317 0.366 0.359 0.347
NaCl (lb/yd3)
Bridge Hurricane (HPB)Lab # 5018
Depth(in) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.08 37.618 37.627 38.201 37.8150.08 - 0.16 34.599 34.440 34.804 34.6140.16 - 0.24 30.440 30.431 30.556 30.4760.24 - 0.32 25.696 25.936 26.046 25.8930.32 - 0.40 22.942 23.073 22.980 22.9980.40 - 0.48 19.042 17.179 17.252 17.8240.48 - 0.72 7.728 8.263 7.944 7.9780.72 - 0.97 1.744 1.772 1.783 1.7660.97 - 1.22 0.454 0.504 0.469 0.4761.22 - 1.47 0.592 0.603 0.548 0.581
NaCl (lb/yd3)
Bridge Broadway Replacement (BRB)Lab # 5054
Depth(in) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.08 20.128 20.785 20.920 20.6110.08 - 0.16 26.407 25.674 26.311 26.1310.16 - 0.24 23.063 22.699 22.624 22.7950.24 - 0.32 19.445 20.026 19.302 19.5910.32 - 0.40 19.561 19.906 19.906 19.7910.40 - 0.48 16.881 16.904 17.254 17.0130.48 - 0.72 7.497 8.001 7.857 7.7850.72 - 0.97 1.175 1.222 1.217 1.2050.97 - 1.22 0.553 0.589 0.596 0.5791.22 - 1.47 0.453 0.475 0.501 0.476
NaCl (lb/yd3)
Bridge Broadway Replacement (BRB)Lab # 5081
Depth(in) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.08 30.614 30.399 30.521 30.5110.08 - 0.16 24.608 24.693 24.628 24.6430.16 - 0.24 20.438 20.166 19.773 20.1260.24 - 0.32 16.360 16.016 15.949 16.1080.32 - 0.40 14.177 13.895 14.079 14.0500.40 - 0.48 12.665 12.318 12.657 12.5470.48 - 0.72 3.649 3.711 3.586 3.6490.72 - 0.97 0.248 0.264 0.236 0.2490.97 - 1.22 0.252 0.265 0.268 0.2621.22 - 1.47 0.288 0.300 0.266 0.285
NaCl (lb/yd3)
Bridge Seabreeze (SWB)Lab # 5082
Depth(in) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.08 40.658 40.645 40.062 40.4550.08 - 0.16 38.187 37.863 38.175 38.0750.16 - 0.24 31.937 31.980 31.836 31.9180.24 - 0.32 29.026 28.978 29.297 29.1000.32 - 0.40 27.541 27.760 27.114 27.4720.40 - 0.48 26.470 26.290 26.278 26.3460.48 - 0.72 20.980 20.701 20.330 20.6700.72 - 0.97 7.624 7.376 8.123 7.7080.97 - 1.22 - - - -1.22 - 1.47 - - - -
NaCl (lb/yd3)
179
Table D-2. Continued. Bridge Seabreeze (SWB)Lab # 5083
Depth(in) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.08 39.841 39.841 39.868 39.8500.08 - 0.16 38.948 39.148 38.488 38.8610.16 - 0.24 34.426 35.015 34.545 34.6620.24 - 0.32 32.315 32.972 32.720 32.6690.32 - 0.40 26.697 26.801 27.009 26.8360.40 - 0.48 22.871 23.330 23.327 23.1760.48 - 0.72 13.869 14.011 14.201 14.0270.72 - 0.97 1.623 1.990 2.382 1.9980.97 - 1.22 0.459 0.459 0.436 0.4511.22 - 1.47 0.466 0.495 0.452 0.471
NaCl (lb/yd3)
Bridge Granada Crashwall (GRB)Lab # 5084
Depth(in) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.08 0.918 0.869 0.858 0.8820.08 - 0.16 0.671 0.676 0.694 0.6800.16 - 0.24 0.560 0.595 0.616 0.5900.24 - 0.32 0.478 0.501 0.490 0.4900.32 - 0.40 0.450 0.472 0.484 0.4690.40 - 0.48 0.504 0.443 0.437 0.4610.48 - 0.72 0.445 0.459 0.408 0.4370.72 - 0.97 0.385 0.402 0.381 0.3890.97 - 1.22 0.453 0.398 0.377 0.4091.22 - 1.47 0.354 0.397 0.404 0.385
NaCl (lb/yd3)
Bridge Turkey Creek (TCB)Lab # 5078
Depth(in) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.08 26.038 25.618 25.965 25.8740.08 - 0.16 19.101 19.205 19.277 19.1940.16 - 0.24 14.341 14.275 14.242 14.2860.24 - 0.32 11.838 12.028 11.490 11.7850.32 - 0.40 9.381 9.381 9.303 9.3550.40 - 0.48 6.469 6.447 6.363 6.4260.48 - 0.72 4.410 4.328 4.338 4.3590.72 - 0.97 1.605 1.616 1.599 1.6070.97 - 1.22 2.257 - - 2.2571.22 - 1.47 0.770 0.816 0.743 0.776
NaCl (lb/yd3)
Bridge Turkey Creek (TCB)Lab # 5079
Depth(in) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.08 28.194 27.837 27.908 27.9800.08 - 0.16 21.143 21.023 21.023 21.0630.16 - 0.24 14.089 14.089 13.962 14.0470.24 - 0.32 10.707 10.489 10.430 10.5420.32 - 0.40 8.336 8.122 7.789 8.0820.40 - 0.48 5.869 5.748 5.986 5.8680.48 - 0.72 2.699 2.681 2.714 2.6980.72 - 0.97 0.748 0.773 0.736 0.7520.97 - 1.22 0.399 0.407 0.404 0.4031.22 - 1.47 0.359 0.388 0.411 0.386
NaCl (lb/yd3)
Bridge Turkey Creek (TCB)Lab # 5080
Depth(in) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.08 30.194 30.474 30.039 30.2360.08 - 0.16 24.939 34.464 25.219 28.2070.16 - 0.24 16.425 16.257 16.663 16.4480.24 - 0.32 13.378 13.398 13.060 13.2790.32 - 0.40 9.990 10.331 10.372 10.2310.40 - 0.48 6.699 6.790 6.746 6.7450.48 - 0.72 2.893 2.930 2.902 2.9080.72 - 0.97 0.665 0.673 0.679 0.6720.97 - 1.22 0.305 0.346 0.329 0.3271.22 - 1.47 0.276 0.260 0.263 0.266
NaCl (lb/yd3)
Bridge New Roosevelt (NRB)Lab # 5075
Depth(in) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.08 15.410 14.872 14.674 14.9850.08 - 0.16 21.570 22.262 21.926 21.9190.16 - 0.24 19.279 19.279 19.575 19.3780.24 - 0.32 16.989 17.213 17.144 17.1150.32 - 0.40 15.694 15.593 15.784 15.6900.40 - 0.48 13.353 13.481 13.530 13.4550.48 - 0.72 8.330 8.465 8.497 8.4310.72 - 0.97 2.973 2.856 3.172 3.0000.97 - 1.22 0.467 0.420 0.490 0.4591.22 - 1.47 0.315 0.327 0.343 0.328
NaCl (lb/yd3)
180
Table D-2. Continued. Bridge New Roosevelt (NRB)Lab # 5076
Depth(in) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.08 14.954 14.833 15.161 14.9830.08 - 0.16 14.049 14.165 14.162 14.1250.16 - 0.24 13.676 13.814 13.712 13.7340.24 - 0.32 14.504 14.612 14.603 14.5730.32 - 0.40 16.213 16.186 16.358 16.2520.40 - 0.48 15.562 15.595 15.438 15.5320.48 - 0.72 13.960 13.934 14.240 14.0450.72 - 0.97 5.197 5.876 5.986 5.6860.97 - 1.22 3.265 3.288 3.252 3.2681.22 - 1.47 0.401 0.416 0.417 0.411
NaCl (lb/yd3)
Bridge New Roosevelt (NRB)Lab # 5077
Depth(in) A B C AVG
0.0 - 0.08 17.903 17.903 17.816 17.8740.08 - 0.16 23.959 23.888 24.035 23.9610.16 - 0.24 21.334 21.872 21.374 21.5270.24 - 0.32 19.257 19.140 19.134 19.1770.32 - 0.40 16.463 16.652 16.576 16.5640.40 - 0.48 14.474 14.926 14.789 14.7300.48 - 0.72 10.243 10.398 9.955 10.1990.72 - 0.97 2.528 2.576 2.588 2.5640.97 - 1.22 0.513 0.526 0.507 0.5151.22 - 1.47 0.246 0.270 0.256 0.257
NaCl (lb/yd3)
181
0 1 2 30
20
40
60Hurricane Bay Bridge #120089 LAB#5016
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 4.994E-14 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.547Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 20.336 Sum(Error)^2 1.803
0 1 2 30
20
40
60Hurricane Bay Bridge #120089 LAB#5017
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.487E-13 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.533Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 41.112 Sum(Error)^2 6.3507
0 1 2 30
20
40
60Hurricane Bay Bridge #120089 LAB#5018
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.511E-13 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.561Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 44.904 Sum(Error)^2 16.542
0 1 2 30
20
40
60Broadway Replac. Bridge #790187 LAB#5054
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.854E-13 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.467Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 33.012 Sum(Error)^2 30.891
0 1 2 30
20
40
60Broadway Replac. Bridge #790187 LAB#5081
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.578E-13 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.467Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 32.401 Sum(Error)^2 14.315
0 1 2 30
20
40
60Seabreeze Bridge #790174 LAB#5082
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 6.280E-13 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.467Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 42.497 Sum(Error)^2 29.283
Figure D-1. Cored Samples Chloride Diffusion Coefficient Regression Analysis.
182
0 1 2 30
20
40
60Seabreeze Bridge #790174 LAB#5083
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.291E-13 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.432Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 49.660 Sum(Error)^2 38.365
0 1 2 30
20
40
60Granada Crashwall #790132 LAB#5084
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.077E-14 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.400Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.942 Sum(Error)^2 0.005
0 1 2 30
20
40
60Turkey Creek Bridge #700203 LAB#5078
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.854E-13 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.556Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 26.791 Sum(Error)^2 9.983
0 1 2 30
20
40
60Turkey Creek Bridge #700203 LAB#5079
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.316E-13 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.423Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 30.269 Sum(Error)^2 5.892
0 1 2 30
20
40
60Turkey Creek Bridge #700203 LAB#5080
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.553E-13 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.417Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 33.237 Sum(Error)^2 5.199
0 1 2 30
20
40
60New Roosevelt Bridge #890152 LAB#5075
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.606E-13 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.614Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 27.046 Sum(Error)^2 7.356
Figure D-1. Continued.
183
0 1 2 30
20
40
60New Roosevelt Bridge #890152 LAB#5076
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 5.404E-13 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.432Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 28.700 Sum(Error)^2 12.185
0 1 2 30
20
40
60New Roosevelt Bridge #890152 LAB#5077
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 3.727E-13 Background(lb/yd^3) 0.382Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 29.696 Sum(Error)^2 10.147
Figure D-1. Continued.
184
APPENDIX E SHORT-TERM ELECTRICAL TEST DATA RESULTS
Table E-1. RCP Coulombs Testing Results. Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Std
CPR1 8719 8965 8780 8821 128.10 1.45CPR2 5054 5001 5291 5115 154.42 3.02CPR3 11689 12568 13535 12597 923.35 7.33CPR4 1450 1248 1380 1359 102.57 7.55CPR5 7348 7269 8877 7831 906.43 11.57CPR6 8244 8033 6785 7687 788.53 10.26CPR7 2065 1942 2145 2051 102.26 4.99CPR8 2373 2408 2426 2402 26.95 1.12CPR9 1090 1169 896 1052 140.48 13.36CPR10 1362 1362 1318 1347 25.40 1.89CPR11 2610 2988 2979 2859 215.69 7.54CPR12 12217 13887 12744 12949 853.72 6.59CPR13 8288 7058 7427 7591 631.19 8.31CPR15 9141 7761 - 8451 975.81 11.55CPR16 3964 5704 5001 4890 875.33 17.90CPR17 5010 5423 - 5217 292.04 5.60CPR18 6680 7277 - 6979 422.14 6.05CPR20 4201 4904 - 4553 497.10 10.92CPR21 7427 7708 - 7568 198.70 2.63
MIX COV (%)
14-Day RCP Data (Coulomb)Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Std
CPR1 6917 6644 6847 6803 141.80 2.08CPR2 3753 4333 3779 3955 327.62 8.28CPR3 9580 9141 9113 9278 261.91 2.82CPR4 781 806 757 781 24.50 3.14CPR5 5537 5686 5414 5546 136.21 2.46CPR6 6548 8648 7699 7632 1051.62 13.78CPR7 1371 1485 1248 1368 118.53 8.66CPR8 1582 1397 1468 1482 93.33 6.30CPR9 1063 821 949 944 121.07 12.82CPR10 1178 1362 1213 1251 97.71 7.81CPR11 2215 2496 1969 2227 263.69 11.84CPR12 5186 6363 8631 6727 1751.06 26.03CPR13 5669 5836 6820 6108 621.95 10.18CPR15 7014 8156 - 7585 807.52 10.65CPR16 3894 4263 3727 3961 274.27 6.92CPR17 5036 3542 3234 3937 963.86 24.48CPR18 3252 3032 - 3142 155.56 4.95CPR20 3173 3691 2997 3287 360.77 10.98CPR21 4377 5502 - 4940 795.50 16.10
MIX COV (%)
28-Day RCP Data (Coulomb)
Sample A Sample B Sample C Average StdCPR1 6952 8411 7207 7523 779.24 10.36CPR2 3779 3858 4263 3967 259.65 6.55CPR3 8640 10107 6978 8575 1565.51 18.26CPR4 540 514 448 501 47.43 9.47CPR5 2645 2645 2426 2572 126.44 4.92CPR6 4184 4368 4395 4316 114.82 2.66CPR7 984 1055 1055 1031 40.99 3.97CPR8 1011 1002 1090 1034 48.42 4.68CPR9 834 830 888 851 32.39 3.81CPR10 923 905 838 889 44.79 5.04CPR11 1679 1740 1723 1714 31.48 1.84CPR12 5871 5915 6064 5950 101.15 1.70CPR13 5098 5713 5537 5449 316.73 5.81CPR15 5774 5115 2821 4570 1550.10 33.92CPR16 3261 2742 2610 2871 344.14 11.99CPR17 2303 2268 2162 2244 73.42 3.27CPR18 1591 1740 1652 1661 74.91 4.51CPR20 2250 1863 1960 2024 201.36 9.95CPR21 2347 2575 2461 2461 114.00 4.63
56-Day RCP Data (Coulomb)MIX COV (%) Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Std
CPR1 4676 5054 5599 5110 464.01 9.08CPR2 3076 3770 4131 3659 536.19 14.65CPR3 8042 7181 7110 7444 518.81 6.97CPR4 408 460 388 419 37.17 8.88CPR5 1775 1723 1749 1749 26.00 1.49CPR6 2979 3120 2900 3000 111.45 3.72CPR7 858 719 976 851 128.64 15.12CPR8 967 1037 1099 1034 66.04 6.38CPR9 819 786 923 843 71.50 8.49CPR10 805 878 949 877 72.00 8.21CPR11 1564 1635 1854 1684 151.16 8.97CPR12 5655 4484 5207 5115 590.86 11.55CPR13 4421 4913 4720 4685 247.90 5.29CPR15 3568 4148 4412 4043 431.75 10.68CPR16 2092 2206 2224 2174 71.58 3.29CPR17 1793 2347 2118 2086 278.38 13.35CPR18 1160 1134 984 1093 95.00 8.69CPR20 1477 1301 1547 1442 126.75 8.79CPR21 1510 1646 1529 1562 73.65 4.72
91-Day RCP Data (Coulomb)MIX COV (%)
Sample A Sample B Sample C Average StdCPR1 6047 5801 6056 5968 144.70 2.42CPR2 2883 2883 2584 2783 172.63 6.20CPR3 6759 6003 5933 6232 458.02 7.35CPR4 386 359 396 380 19.14 5.03CPR5 1213 1195 1283 1230 46.49 3.78CPR6 4400 2992 4334 3909 794.54 20.33CPR7 1027 887 - 957 98.99 10.34CPR8 814 989 - 902 123.74 13.73CPR9 719 738 - 729 13.44 1.84CPR10 577 657 - 617 56.57 9.17CPR11 1222 1325 - 1274 72.83 5.72CPR12 4604 4436 - 4520 118.79 2.63CPR13 4166 4184 3955 4102 127.34 3.10CPR15 2769 2329 2566 2555 220.22 8.62CPR16 1538 1195 1090 1274 234.30 18.39CPR17 1644 1283 1626 1518 203.43 13.40CPR18 544 621 588 584 38.63 6.61CPR20 867 923 914 901 30.07 3.34CPR21 712 914 888 838 109.89 13.11
182-day RCP Data (Coulomb)MIX COV (%) Sample A Sample B Sample C Average Std
CPR1 4922 4660 - 4791 185.26 3.87CPR2 2684 3011 3060 2918 204.41 7.00CPR3 4627 5111 4050 4596 531.18 11.56CPR4 309 300 268 292 21.55 7.37CPR5 862 792 753 802 55.23 6.88CPR6 1371 1520 1564 1485 101.15 6.81CPR7 791 721 - 756 49.50 6.55CPR8 863 797 - 830 46.67 5.62CPR9 490 533 - 512 30.41 5.94CPR10 349 393 - 371 31.11 8.39CPR11 1103 983 - 1043 84.85 8.14CPR12 3618 3727 - 3673 77.07 2.10CPR13 4192 4488 - 4340 209.30 4.82CPR15 1814 1794 1839 1816 22.55 1.24CPR16 1180 1031 - 1106 105.36 9.53CPR17 1175 1579 1508 1421 215.70 15.18CPR18 329 357 306 331 25.54 7.72CPR20 891 732 882 835 89.31 10.70CPR21 390 432 453 425 32.08 7.55
364-day RCP Data (Coulomb)MIX COV (%)
185
Table E-2. SR (Lime Cured) Testing Results.
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 5.4 5.9 5.4 5.6 5.3 5.6 5.4 5.7 5.54B 5.1 5 5.3 5.1 5 5.1 5.3 5.1 5.13C 4.6 5.3 5.4 5.4 4.6 5.2 5.5 5.4 5.18A 7.8 7.7 8.3 7.9 7.7 7.8 8.7 8 7.99B 7.7 7.6 6.8 7 7.7 7.6 6.8 7.1 7.29C 7 7.8 6.1 6.5 7.1 6.5 6 6.4 6.68A 5 5.2 5.1 5.6 5 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.23B 5 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.69C 5.6 4.9 4.8 4.7 5.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.94A 19 17.1 19.5 19.7 17.3 17.7 19.1 19.6 18.6B 19.5 17.6 17.3 19.8 19.5 17.7 19.7 19 18.8C 17.5 20.4 15.5 17.1 17.3 19.1 15.9 17.4 17.5A 5.7 6.3 6.2 5.8 5.5 6.2 6.2 5.6 5.94B 6.1 6.2 6.5 5.8 6.1 6 6.3 5.5 6.06C 5.4 5.8 6.2 5.6 5.2 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.68A 6 5.6 5.7 6.2 5.9 5.7 5.9 6 5.88B 6.4 6.3 6.3 5.9 5.8 6 6.2 6 6.11C 6.6 6 5.8 6.7 6.7 5.7 5.7 6.6 6.23A 10.8 9.9 10 10.5 10.2 10.4 9.6 10.6 10.3B 9.7 10.2 10.6 11.8 9.8 10.4 10.5 11.8 10.6C 9.6 10.2 10.5 11.8 10.5 10.8 10.4 11.8 10.7A 8.4 9 8.2 8.2 7.8 9.1 8.3 8.3 8.41B 8.5 8.9 7.9 7.9 8.6 8.8 8.1 7.8 8.31C 8.4 9.1 8.7 8 8 8.6 8.6 8 8.43A 31.2 28.4 27.6 27.1 31.6 28.4 28.3 27.5 28.8B 27.7 24.1 27.9 26.8 27.7 24.8 28.2 27.2 26.8C 26.5 28.2 29.9 29.6 26.6 28.2 30.4 29.6 28.6A 21.8 24.4 24.2 19.9 22.3 21.3 20.6 22.7 22.2B 21.8 23.6 23.1 21.7 21.6 23.8 23.4 21.9 22.6C 24.2 19.9 23.7 24.9 24.4 21.3 24.3 22.5 23.2
5.3 0.23CPR1
0.66
28.1 1.10
CPR8
14-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)SampleMIX COV
(%)Std. Dev.
Reading Locations (Deg.)Average
4.26
5.0 0.27 5.43
18.3 0.68 3.71
7.3
8.4 0.06 0.74
8.98
5.9 0.20 3.36
6.1 0.18 2.94
CPR10
CPR9 3.90
22.6 0.50 2.21
CPR6
CPR7 2.2510.5 0.24
CPR2
CPR3
CPR4
CPR5
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 12.2 11.1 11 11.1 11.3 10.9 10.9 12.1 11.3B 10.7 10 11.1 10.1 10.8 9.8 10.9 10.1 10.4C 11.7 10.2 10.9 10.6 11.6 9.8 9.8 10.9 10.7A 8.2 8.3 10 10.1 8.5 8.4 9.9 9.8 9.15B 8.7 8.7 9.6 10.3 9.2 9.8 10.1 9.9 9.54C 8.1 8.7 8.1 8.5 8.2 8.2 8.5 8.5 8.35A 6.5 7.1 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.6 7.2 6.81B 6.3 6.4 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.1 6.4 6.31C 6.5 7 7.1 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.79A 4.5 4 4.3 4.6 4.6 4 4.3 4.7 4.38B 3.2 4.3 3.8 3.9 3.7 4.1 4 3.8 3.85C 2.7 3.7 3.3 4.6 3.3 3.7 4.5 5.1 3.86A 6.4 6.8 7 7 6.5 6.5 6.9 7 6.76B 6.2 7.2 6.3 7.5 6.5 7.3 6.2 7.5 6.84C 6.7 7.1 7.5 7.8 6.7 6.7 7.5 7.8 7.23A 6.2 6.1 6.7 6.1 6 6.2 6.3 6.6 6.28B 5 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.2 5.7 6 5.2 5.49C 5.5 5.3 5.7 6.1 6.3 5.4 5 5.7 5.63A 8.2 7.6 7 8 8 7.5 7.2 8.1 7.7B 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.1 7.3 7.7 7.2 6.9 7.28C 6.5 6.4 6.8 7.8 6.4 7 7.3 7.6 6.98A 5.1 6.3 4.8 6.1 5 6 4.8 6.6 5.59B 5.4 4.3 5.1 6.2 5.4 6.4 6.1 5.3 5.53C 7.7 7.1 6.9 6.6 7 7.2 6.8 6.3 6.95A 5.7 5 5 5.2 5.2 4.9 4.8 4.9 5.09B 5.4 5 5.3 5 5.4 4.9 5.4 5 5.18C 5.2 4.8 4.7 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.5 5.2 4.99
MIX Sample14-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.
Dev.Average
CPR20
CPR21
10.8 0.46 4.23
9.0 0.61 6.72
6.6 0.28 4.24
4.0 0.30 7.43
6.9 0.25 3.58
5.8 0.42 7.26
7.3 0.36 4.98
6.0 0.81 13.38
5.1 0.09 1.85
CPR11
CPR12
CPR13
CPR15
CPR16
CPR17
CPR18
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 5.6 6.3 6 6.5 5.7 5.9 5.7 6.1 5.98B 5.7 5.8 6 5.6 6 5.8 6 5.9 5.85C 5.4 5.9 6.2 6.1 5.5 5.7 6.2 6.1 5.89A 8.7 8.8 9.8 8.8 7.6 8.8 9.7 8.8 8.88B 8.9 8.8 8 8.2 8.9 9.1 7.6 8.1 8.45C 8 8.3 6.8 7 8.1 7.4 6.8 7.1 7.44A 5.6 5.6 6.1 6.2 5.4 5.5 5.6 6.4 5.8B 5.6 5 5.2 5 5.5 5 5.2 5.2 5.21C 6.3 5.3 5.2 5.1 6 5.6 5.2 5.1 5.48A 33 30.8 34.2 34.6 35.4 31.9 34.5 32.4 33.4B 36.2 33.1 31.4 35.4 35.8 32.1 31.7 40.2 34.5C 33.6 37.5 27.8 27.1 33.9 34.7 29.3 27.7 31.5A 7.5 7.8 7.6 7.5 7.2 8.1 8 7.1 7.6B 7.6 7.8 8.6 7.5 7.5 8.4 8.4 8.1 7.99C 6.8 7.3 7.6 7 6.6 6.9 7.5 7.1 7.1A 7.1 7.7 6.8 7.2 7 7.1 7.1 6.7 7.09B 7.1 7.5 7.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.1 7.24C 7.9 6.9 7.1 7.7 7.7 6.8 7 7.8 7.36A 21.2 20.9 19 20.4 20.3 19.2 19.4 20.2 20.1B 18.4 19.5 20.3 20.9 18.2 19.7 20 20.6 19.7C 20.6 21.1 20.1 22.5 19 22.1 20.6 22.7 21.1A 14.7 16.1 16.3 17.1 15.8 16.8 15.8 15.9 16.1B 15.6 17.4 15 15.8 15.8 17.5 15.7 15.3 16C 16.1 16.7 16.5 16.2 16.3 17.2 16.7 16.1 16.5A 34.6 29.4 27.9 28.2 33.4 30.7 28.7 29.6 30.3B 27.9 27.9 31.4 27.5 30.4 27.2 30.3 26 28.6C 28 28.4 31 34.9 28.1 27.7 30.6 34.7 30.4A 21.3 22.7 19 23.2 20.6 21.3 19.4 20.8 21B 21.6 24.1 24.3 22.2 21.8 23.9 23.5 22.5 23C 24.1 22.1 26.1 25.1 25.1 20 25.9 23.8 24
CPR10 22.7 1.52 6.69
CPR9 29.8 1.04 3.48
CPR8 16.2 0.25 1.57
CPR7 20.3 0.72 3.54
CPR6 7.2 0.14 1.90
CPR5 7.6 0.44 5.88
CPR4 33.1 1.53 4.64
CPR3 5.5 0.29 5.36
CPR2 8.3 0.74 8.95
CPR1 5.9 0.06 1.09
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.
Dev.AverageMIX Sample
28-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 16.3 15.4 15.4 16.1 17.1 17.1 15.4 15.2 16B 14.7 13.8 15.3 14.7 14.6 13.9 15.3 13.9 14.5C 15.7 13.3 14.3 14.2 15.8 13.4 14.1 14.3 14.4A 9.5 9.8 11.4 10.7 9.6 9.6 10.6 11.2 10.3B 11 11.5 10 11.3 10.7 11.6 9.9 11.2 10.9C 9.4 9.6 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.8 9.7 9.4 9.56A 7.3 7.5 7.2 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.25B 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.8 6.6 6.5 6.6 6.64C 7.1 7.5 7 7.1 7.1 7.4 7.5 7 7.21A 8.6 9.2 7.6 8 8.9 9.2 7.9 8.6 8.5B 7.8 8.8 9.6 9 8.8 8.8 9.1 9.3 8.9C 8.6 8.8 10.3 7.1 8.6 9.2 9.8 7.2 8.7A 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.3 7 7.2 7.2 7.4 7.23B 7.2 7.7 6.8 8.2 7.8 7.8 6.9 8 7.55C 7.2 7.9 8.4 7.7 7 8.8 8.3 7.7 7.88A 8.1 8.5 9.6 9.5 8.2 8.4 9.6 8.9 8.85B 8.3 7.9 9.2 8.6 9 8 9.4 8.2 8.58C 8.4 8.5 8.9 8.6 9 7.9 9.1 8.7 8.64A 13.1 10.4 10.1 10.8 12.4 10.3 9.9 10.6 11B 11.1 10.9 11 10.9 10.9 12.9 11.6 11 11.3C 10 11.4 10.7 11.8 10.1 11.3 10.5 11.3 10.9A 10.4 12.6 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.5 10 10.1 10.8B 11.4 12.6 11.8 12.7 11.4 11.4 11.4 12.2 11.9C 12.9 11.9 11.2 15.5 14.7 12.6 12.3 15.3 13.3A 9.7 9.1 8.8 9.4 10 9.1 9.7 10.1 9.49B 9.6 9.7 10 9.8 10.1 9.3 9.3 9.5 9.66C 8.9 9.7 8.4 11.3 10.5 9.6 9.6 10.7 9.84
MIX Sample28-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.
Dev.Average
CPR21 9.7 0.18 1.81
CPR20 12.0 1.26 10.52
CPR18 11.0 0.22 1.95
CPR17 8.7 0.14 1.66
CPR16 7.6 0.33 4.30
CPR15 8.7 0.20 2.30
CPR13 7.0 0.34 4.88
CPR12 10.3 0.67 6.53
CPR11 15.0 0.89 5.97
186
Table E-2. Continued.
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 6.5 7 6.7 7.1 6.4 7.2 6.4 7.1 6.8B 6.8 6.4 7.1 6.5 6.5 6.3 6.8 6.5 6.61C 6.1 6.9 7.2 7 6 6.9 7.2 6.9 6.78A 9.6 10 10.9 9.9 10 9.6 10.8 10.3 10.1B 9.8 9.7 9.3 9 9.7 9.1 9 8.9 9.31C 8.9 8.8 7.7 8 8.3 9.3 7.9 8 8.36A 6.2 6.5 6.3 6.8 6.6 6 6.3 6.5 6.4B 6.2 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.84C 7.3 6.3 6.1 5.8 6.7 6 5.9 5.6 6.21A 48.2 44.4 52 53.4 47 44.9 52.6 50.4 49.1B 55.9 53.3 50.5 48.1 57.4 49.5 52.1 48.5 51.9C 44.6 48.4 41.7 42.5 44.9 47.5 43.8 40.7 44.3A 10.5 11.1 11.6 10.6 10.7 12.7 11.4 10 11.1B 11.8 11.7 12.3 10.9 11.3 12.3 12.2 10.6 11.6C 10.4 10.7 10.1 10.6 10.2 11.1 10.4 10.3 10.5A 9.4 9.2 8.8 9.9 9.5 8.8 8.7 9.6 9.24B 9.6 9.4 9.4 9.1 9.2 9.6 9.4 9.8 9.44C 10.2 8.8 9.3 10.2 10.3 9.1 9.4 10.4 9.71A 36.7 37.9 34.9 34.1 36.3 36.2 35.1 35.1 35.8B 35.3 35.1 36.4 36.7 34 37 36.3 37.6 36.1C 36.4 37 37.1 40.9 35.7 38.3 37 39.1 37.7A 24.1 29.2 29 27.5 27.3 29 27.8 27.3 27.7B 26.8 28.9 26.5 27.2 26.4 29.4 26.9 27.1 27.4C 29.1 30.4 29 27.3 28.3 28.6 29.3 27 28.6A 39.8 37 35.9 34.6 40.6 37.1 33 35.1 36.6B 37.2 33.8 39.2 32.8 36.4 34 38.7 34.6 35.8C 34.8 35 41.5 45.3 36.3 36.5 41.4 45.1 39.5A 28.5 31.7 27.4 30.2 30.6 32.2 25.7 30.9 29.7B 29.1 32.2 29.7 29.6 25.2 30.6 31.7 30.6 29.8C 35.2 31.4 33 31.1 34.1 30.5 34.5 31.7 32.7
CPR4
CPR5 0.58 5.26
CPR10
CPR6
CPR7
CPR8
CPR9
30.7 1.70 5.54
37.3
27.9 0.65 2.32
9.58
1.510.10
11.1
1.92 5.14
9.5 0.24 2.52
36.5 1.03 2.82
4.66
48.4 3.87 7.99
CPR1 6.7
6.2 0.29
9.3 0.89CPR2
CPR3
MIX Sample56-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.
Dev.Average0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270
A 20.7 20 20.1 20.3 21.5 19.7 19.8 21 20.4B 18 17.7 19.6 18.1 18.9 17.8 19.4 18.4 18.5C 20.1 17.4 18.9 18.3 20.4 17.2 17.8 18.1 18.5A 10.5 10.2 11.7 11.2 10 10.2 11.6 11.2 10.8B 12.2 12.9 12.2 12.2 11.7 12.7 11.1 12.2 12.2C 11.5 11 10.6 10.2 10.5 11.1 10.7 9.8 10.7A 8.1 8.2 8.1 8.4 8.1 7.9 7.9 8.6 8.16B 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.5 7.3 7.7 7.51C 7.7 8.3 8.3 7.8 7.7 8.3 8.6 7.8 8.06A 8.6 8.7 7.9 8.4 8.2 8.4 8 9.1 8.41B 8.1 8.3 9.1 8.5 8.5 8 8.9 8.8 8.53C 8.4 8.2 9.3 7.8 8.6 8.5 8.8 7.9 8.44A 8.9 9.1 8.9 9.7 8.8 9.1 9.1 10.1 9.21B 9.3 9.7 8.6 10.4 9.8 9.8 8.5 10.6 9.59C 8.8 10 10.3 9.6 8.8 10 10.4 9.9 9.73A 12.1 12.3 13.1 13.4 12 12.4 12.8 12.6 12.6B 12.2 12 12.6 11.9 12.8 12.5 12.5 12.1 12.3C 11.8 11.7 12.2 12.1 12.1 12.2 11.9 12 12A 19.8 18.2 17.6 18.4 19.9 18.6 17.7 18.6 18.6B 19.9 18.6 19.7 19.2 19.1 19.7 17.4 19.4 19.1C 18.5 19.1 18.6 19.8 18.7 19.2 18.8 19.8 19.1A 14.6 16.2 15.8 14.8 14.7 15.7 15.3 15 15.3B 13.8 15.9 16.5 16.2 14.6 15.3 15.8 15.7 15.5C 16 16.1 15 15 16.1 15.9 15.5 15.3 15.6A 16 14.8 14.7 15.5 16.2 14.7 15.3 16 15.4B 15.3 14 15.4 14.1 14.8 14 14.9 14 14.6C 13.3 13.7 13.6 15 13.1 13.9 13 14.9 13.8
CPR17
CPR18
CPR12
CPR13
CPR20
CPR21 14.6 0.79
2.39
5.44
18.9 0.29 1.51
15.5 0.18 1.14
12.3 0.29
0.70
9.5 0.27 2.79
7.24
7.9 0.35 4.42
11.2 0.81
8.5 0.06CPR15
CPR16
CPR11 19.1 1.09 5.68
MIX Sample56-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.
Dev.Average
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 7.3 8.3 7.7 8.3 7.2 8.2 7.6 8.5 7.89B 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.6 7.1 7.4 7.9 7.5 7.43C 7.1 7.3 7.8 7.6 6.6 7.3 7.8 7.6 7.39A 11.2 10.9 11.2 10.5 11.2 10.8 11.6 11 11.1B 10.1 10 9.9 9.8 10.2 10 10.8 9.2 10C 10.4 9.7 9.7 12.2 10.1 9.8 9.7 11.5 10.4A 8.7 7.1 7.6 8.2 7.1 7.1 6.9 7.7 7.55B 6.4 7 5.9 6.7 6.4 6.5 5.5 6.2 6.33C 7.5 7.4 7.2 5.8 6.9 6.8 6.8 5.7 6.76A 63.8 52 63.2 61.4 58.5 56 59.1 64.6 59.8B 64.9 59.4 66 62.7 56.5 62.9 71.9 60.8 63.1C 55.7 60.8 55.3 49.7 54.1 54.7 57.1 51.9 54.9A 14.9 16.1 14.6 13.7 14 16.3 15.8 13.8 14.9B 16.3 15.7 16.1 14.6 15.3 16.2 15.7 14.2 15.5C 13.4 13.7 16 14.6 13.3 14.2 15.6 13.6 14.3A 11.6 11.6 10.8 11.6 11.7 10.9 11.6 11.4 11.4B 12.3 11.5 10.7 11.6 11.6 11.5 11.2 11.3 11.5C 11.4 10.5 11.5 12.3 12.5 10.7 11.5 12.8 11.7A 37.8 43.1 38.3 38.1 40.2 40.1 36.8 39.7 39.3B 36.6 40.1 42.4 41.3 37.4 41.6 40.8 41.5 40.2C 37.7 43.2 43 47.4 43.4 43.2 44.6 47 43.7A 35.2 38 33.6 33.4 33.7 36.9 33.6 33.8 34.8B 34.8 38 33.8 35.1 35.6 36.4 32.6 33 34.9C 34.4 33.5 35.1 33.3 34.3 33.5 35.6 33.2 34.1A 42.2 36.9 35.8 36.3 44.5 39.3 38.9 35.5 38.7B 35.8 36.2 41.2 36.4 35.3 34.7 41.7 35.8 37.1C 36.6 40.6 41.4 49 38.4 40.7 42.7 46.6 42A 31.2 33.2 28.4 31 30.7 32.7 27.4 30.7 30.7B 30 30.8 31.8 31.5 30.6 29.9 31.9 31.9 31.1C 36 28.5 36.3 35.1 36.8 33.7 36.9 34.3 34.7
CPR2
CPR3
CPR4
CPR5
59.3 4.14 6.98
10.5
CPR6
CPR7
CPR8
3.680.287.6CPR1
6.9 0.62 9.02
CPR10
CPR9
0.13 1.13
32.1 2.23 6.93
39.3 2.49 6.33
41.1 2.33 5.67
34.6
0.53 5.07
0.43 1.24
14.9 0.61 4.07
11.5
AverageMIX Sample
91-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.
Dev. 0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 23.4 22.6 21.8 23 22.8 21.8 21.1 22.7 22.4B 19.5 18.7 22.1 20 18.6 18.6 20.8 19.8 19.8C 21.4 19.2 20.4 19.8 22.1 20.2 20.6 19.8 20.4A 11.1 11 12.6 12.1 10.8 10.5 12.7 12.4 11.7B 12.4 13.1 11.5 13.3 11.9 11.6 11.5 12.9 12.3C 11 11 11.1 10.9 11.1 10.9 11 10.9 11A 8.9 9.1 8.9 9.3 8.9 9.1 8.7 8.6 8.94B 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.7 8.2 8.5 8.4 8.3 8.35C 8.6 9.1 9.1 8.5 8.4 9.4 8.9 8.6 8.83A 9.8 10.1 9.6 10.1 10.4 10.3 9.8 10.5 10.1B 9.8 10.5 10.7 9.8 10.7 10.3 10.3 9.8 10.2C 10.7 10 11 10.3 10.6 10.1 11.6 10.1 10.6A 12.9 13.8 12.2 14.4 12.4 13.2 13 14.5 13.3B 14.2 13.9 13.6 15.9 15.6 14.5 14.2 14.6 14.6C 12.5 14.1 14.2 11.2 12.3 14.1 13.5 12.8 13.1A 15.1 16.3 17.7 17 15.8 16.8 17.7 16.4 16.6B 17.6 16.6 17.5 15.8 17.2 16.4 15.9 14.9 16.5C 15.6 16.3 16.2 15.9 16.7 15.8 16.1 16 16.1A 31.2 28.5 28.7 30 31.4 29.3 29.5 29.4 29.8B 31.5 32.2 30.9 29.2 29.3 30.2 29.7 28.9 30.2C 25.5 28.2 28.5 29.3 26.6 28.9 27 29.1 27.9A 20.4 20.3 20.6 20 20.9 20 19.4 20.3 20.2B 19.2 20.6 19.2 21.5 20.8 19.6 21.4 21.1 20.4C 20.1 22 21.7 18.9 20.6 20.8 20.2 20.4 20.6A 24.7 25.3 22.9 21.9 22.5 25.2 23.2 22.9 23.6B 22.2 22.5 22.9 21.4 22.3 22.9 23.4 21 22.3C 25.2 26.3 23.5 24.4 25.9 25.9 23.6 22.7 24.7
CPR21
CPR15
CPR16
CPR17
CPR18
11.6 0.64 5.53
CPR20
CPR12
CPR13 8.7 0.31 3.58
10.3 0.24 2.35
13.7 0.80 5.84
16.4 0.28 1.69
23.5 1.18 5.02
29.3 1.24 4.23
20.4 0.18 0.86
20.9 1.37 6.57
MIX
CPR11
Sample91-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.
Dev.Average
187
Table E-2. Continued.
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 8.8 9.4 8.6 9.5 11 9.7 8.5 9.2 9.34B 8.7 8.5 9.2 8.4 8.6 8.5 9.4 8.5 8.73C 8.9 8.5 10.3 10.2 8.6 8.1 10 9.8 9.3A 13.4 16.7 13.5 12.3 12.1 12.7 14.3 12.7 13.5B 14.4 12.9 12.7 12.3 12.8 14.4 13.2 12.2 13.1C 11.4 15.5 10.6 12.4 12.6 11.4 10.9 10.6 11.9A 9 10.1 8.2 9.1 8.3 8.4 8.3 8.5 8.74B 8.6 9.2 8.8 7.9 9.3 9 9.2 7.7 8.71C 8.1 10.6 8.5 6.9 9 9.2 8.4 7.2 8.49A 72.5 75.5 79.7 85.6 70.3 76.3 78.6 79.2 77.2B 79.2 78.4 77.6 83.4 88.4 76.2 85.8 82 81.4C 82.6 79.7 61.8 62.6 71.7 82.5 67.1 69.4 72.2A 25.4 26.5 31.3 25.6 26.2 26.1 27.9 23.5 26.6B 23.6 27.3 27.6 31.1 24.3 26.6 28.5 23.7 26.6C 21.5 22.3 24.2 22.3 23.3 23.1 23.8 22.2 22.8A 16.3 15.8 15.1 16 16.3 15.5 15.1 15.3 15.7B 14.7 15.4 15.4 15 14.3 15.5 15.4 15.8 15.2C 17.6 14.7 15.5 16.9 18 15.3 15.7 16.9 16.3A 41.6 47.2 44.2 44.7 43.6 51.6 40.1 41 44.3B 42.7 45 50.2 47.7 43.4 44.1 44.7 47.3 45.6C 48.7 47.7 46.4 50.2 45.5 44.7 47.6 51.6 47.8A 43.6 44.5 44 39 42.3 48.1 43.2 39.4 43B 44.6 44.4 40.2 41.2 41.8 44.1 41.1 41.6 42.4C 41.1 45.2 45.4 43.7 41.2 49.7 43.6 44.1 44.3A 45.6 43.6 42.6 42.3 47.3 44.6 41.7 42.4 43.8B 42.8 40.5 44.2 39 40.8 39.6 45.7 40.3 41.6C 41.6 40.9 45.8 48.4 42.8 44.8 45.3 48.6 44.8A 40 41.9 34.5 41 39.4 40.7 35.5 31.5 38.1B 37.9 40 41.7 37.8 42.2 42.5 42.3 40.2 40.6C 44.4 42.5 47.3 45.4 46.9 42.5 45.9 46.5 45.2
Average
1.61 3.72
41.3 3.61 8.74
CPR2
CPR1 3.760.349.1
CPR3
CPR4
CPR5
43.4
45.9
8.6
76.9
CPR7
CPR8
CPR9
1.79 3.90
43.2 0.95 2.21
0.14 1.59
12.8 0.81 6.28
5.99
CPR6
25.3 2.16 8.52
15.7 0.57 3.63
CPR10
MIX Sample182-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.)
4.61
Std. Dev. 0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270
A 28 26.5 26.1 25.6 29 25.9 25.4 25 26.4B 24.3 22.4 25.9 23.6 23.4 22.3 25.6 23.9 23.9C 26.3 22.7 22.6 23.7 26.2 22.5 22.9 23.1 23.8A 12.1 11.9 13.4 13.5 11.8 11.6 13.7 13.4 12.7B 13.3 15.4 13.9 13.6 14.1 13.4 14.2 14.1 14C 12.6 13.3 11.8 12.1 13.4 12.2 11.8 12.1 12.4A 11.1 12.1 10.5 10.8 10.4 11 10.2 10.8 10.9B 10.6 11.4 10.1 10.7 10.7 9.9 10.1 10.4 10.5C 11.1 12.8 11.3 10.6 11 11.2 10.3 10.7 11.1A 14.8 15.5 14.1 15.2 13.2 15.2 8.5 15.2 14B 16.5 16.1 16.9 16.1 16.5 15.4 15.9 16.5 16.2C 13.4 15.6 15.8 15 15.4 15.4 16.7 15.8 15.4A 20.7 21.5 21.2 24.3 20.1 20.6 20.7 24.6 21.7B 24.1 23.7 21.4 26.7 24.8 23.3 20.4 26.9 23.9C 20.7 25.2 22.1 21.4 18 22.6 22.4 20.7 21.6A 22.5 23.9 24.9 24.6 22.4 24.4 25.3 24 24B 25.2 25.1 23.4 24.8 26.7 25.2 23.9 24.3 24.8C 24.5 22.8 23.4 23.3 24.5 23.9 23.6 22.7 23.6A 59.8 51.1 59.2 61.4 58.3 55.7 55.5 57 57.3B 56 57 55.6 56.3 55.1 62.2 58.2 55.6 57C 51.2 53 52.8 52.6 50.4 54 51.7 55.8 52.7A 34.8 31.7 29.3 30.7 31.5 31.9 31 29 31.2B 31.1 32.5 29.4 33.3 32.2 29.2 29.6 31.5 31.1C 29.6 34 30.1 27.8 32.1 29.7 31.9 28.1 30.4A 42.7 24.4 14.1 23.7 21 12.2 15.7 13.4 20.9B 10.7 40.3 40.2 39.7 42.1 43.1 42.1 37.6 37C 46.9 42.6 40.2 42.8 45.4 41.3 40.9 41.7 42.7
Average
24.1
CPR13
CPR15
CPR16
CPR17
CPR18
0.44CPR20
CPR21
0.63 2.61
33.5 11.31 33.73
55.6 2.57 4.61
30.9 1.43
1.15 7.56
22.4 1.29 5.76
15.2
0.85 6.53
10.8 0.32 2.96
13.0
24.7 1.50 6.09CPR11
CPR12
MIX Sample182-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.
Dev.
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 14.3 13.4 10 9.7 12 11.7 10.1 10.3 11.4B 9.7 13.4 12.6 11.4 14.2 9.8 15.5 10.7 12.2C 12.5 13.2 9.9 14.6 9.3 16 10.4 14.3 12.5A 14.7 14.4 14.8 14.3 13.3 16.2 14.5 14.4 14.6B 14.7 12.7 16.2 12.1 13.7 13.1 14.2 12.4 13.6C 13.4 12.6 10.2 12.3 13.3 13.4 9.9 12.9 12.3A 11.2 3 8.3 11.1 11 9 8.3 9.7 8.95B 9.1 12.3 9.2 7 9.2 8.7 6.8 6.8 8.64C 9.1 9.2 9.8 7.9 8.8 10.3 10.6 7.6 9.16A 83.5 92.9 96.3 104 87.1 82.6 99.1 100 93.3B 97.9 85 92.8 82.5 102 90.8 96.7 85 91.6C 85.2 95.8 74.6 76 88.8 92.4 75.8 77.4 83.3A 34.1 41.8 42.4 30.7 36 40.8 40.4 34 37.5B 44 43.6 38.2 43.6 39.5 36.7 35.6 41.4 40.3C 36.4 43.6 35.7 34.5 37.8 32.8 38.3 34.6 36.7A 22.4 21.8 21.3 23.1 22.6 22.4 21.2 23.8 22.3B 20.6 23.2 21.5 22 22.5 22.1 22.4 22.1 22.1C 23.4 19.9 22.8 22.1 24.5 21.2 22.2 22.2 22.3A 47.3 41.9 33.6 43.5 40.7 43.6 41.9 44.5 42.1B 55.4 42.3 40.5 47.2 46.5 42 45.6 47.3 45.9C 43.3 46.5 44.2 50.1 40.6 46.9 43.8 52.3 46A 48.4 53.4 43.8 47.5 45.9 51 45.1 46.6 47.7B 48.2 51.4 48.1 43.6 39.8 44.7 45.7 41.1 45.3C 47.8 49.3 39.7 46.4 50.1 49.6 48.7 47.3 47.4A 51.8 55.7 45.7 48 54.5 47.3 53.1 46 50.3B 70.2 42.5 50.6 45.4 47.7 46.1 50.9 45.3 49.8C 52 59.7 54.3 46.8 48.9 50.4 51.1 53.3 52.1A 55.8 56.4 51.3 53.2 55.2 55.2 52.6 53.5 54.2B 51.8 52.3 56.5 52.3 51.6 52.7 53.4 52.5 52.9C 61.4 55.2 57 63.1 58.3 57.2 57.4 57.2 58.4
Average
CPR2
CPR3
CPR4
CPR5
CPR6
CPR7
CPR8
38.2
CPR9 50.7 1.18
CPR10
CPR1
89.4 5.36
2.96
13.5 1.17 8.67
8.9 0.26
1.90
22.2 0.15 0.67
6.00
4.600.5512.0
2.33
55.1 2.86 5.19
46.8 1.29 2.75
4.96
44.6 2.18 4.89
Reading Locations (Deg.) Std. Dev.
MIX Sample364-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%)
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 32.8 30.6 26.9 32.7 29.2 29.4 27.7 28 29.7B 26.2 27.3 30.5 29.8 25.8 25 31.1 27.8 27.9C 37.2 27.2 26.1 26.9 32.4 28.5 25.1 28.2 29A 12.6 12.5 15.6 14.1 12.9 12.2 15.3 14.7 13.7B 15.8 16.7 16 16.4 15.2 16.3 15.3 16.3 16C 15.5 15.9 13.6 13.4 14.2 15.6 13 13.3 14.3A 10.4 11.6 11 11.4 10.5 11.2 10.6 11.3 11B 10 10.6 10.2 10.2 10.5 10.9 10.1 10.1 10.3C 11.4 11.8 10.8 10.8 10.8 11.2 11.3 11.1 11.2A 20.5 20.7 20.3 20.4 20.2 20.4 21 20.4 20.5B 22.7 23.7 23.6 22 24.7 22.3 25.9 22.5 23.4C 20.3 21.8 22.9 22.6 27 23.7 25.3 23.7 23.4A 29.2 29.5 26.7 35.7 31.3 29.7 28.6 33 30.5B 38 34.7 46 40.3 47.4 45.7 35.7 38.1 40.7C 34.4 38.7 49.8 43.6 32.6 39 45.1 36.9 40A 29.5 32.7 32.9 31.5 31.1 31.3 29.8 31.2 31.3B 35.4 34.4 32.4 32.3 38.4 32.7 34.8 31.5 34C 37.9 39.9 32.7 35.7 34.3 37.6 37.3 33.3 36.1A 101 90.3 87.7 92.3 97.6 94.9 89.5 89.9 92.9B 87.2 102 84.2 91.7 95.2 88.8 88.2 89.5 90.8C 82.7 86.2 84.8 85.2 80.2 83.7 82.3 82.4 83.4A 54.8 44.6 44.1 43.6 39.1 41.5 39.8 42.2 43.7B 41.6 42.4 44.2 44.2 37.3 42.6 44.2 45.2 42.7C 48 46.8 45.5 50.2 47.5 53.6 46.2 44.3 47.8A 64.1 69.7 63.8 61.5 67.9 69.5 63 65.8 65.7B 64.1 62.3 63.8 62.2 64.8 62.7 67.5 61.2 63.6C 73.1 68 63.6 65.2 71 67.5 63.9 65.1 67.2
Average
CPR21
CPR15
CPR16
CPR17
CPR18
14.7 1.18 8.01
CPR20
CPR12
CPR13 10.8 0.44 4.06
22.4 1.69 7.54
37.1 5.73 15.47
33.8 2.43 7.18
65.5 1.81 2.76
89.1 4.97 5.58
44.7 2.67 5.98
CPR11 28.9 0.87 3.00
Reading Locations (Deg.)MIX Sample364-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%)Std.
Dev.
188
Table E-2. Continued.
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 10.8 12.2 10.8 10.5 13.2 11.4 10.5 10.3 11.2B 12.1 12.2 15.3 12.2 11.2 11.1 13.3 11.9 12.4C 14.8 10.7 14.4 13.8 10 14.1 11.8 17.8 13.4A 18.5 15.5 14.1 14.5 14.2 22.1 14.5 13.3 15.8B 13.3 26.9 16.4 14.1 15.4 27.5 17.9 12.7 18C 14.3 17 21.5 20.7 14.2 15.7 12.5 12.2 16A 15.8 9.8 10.5 9.2 8.9 8.5 8.4 9.4 10.1B 8.1 7.4 14.6 9.2 11.5 8 7.7 8.6 9.39C 9.5 8.4 10.2 8.4 10 11.1 7.7 8.3 9.2A 107 108 95.3 121 96 122 92.1 115 107B 104 100 135 109 130 111 112 121 115C 109 108 96.8 96.3 105 108 102 93.1 102A 47.3 45.8 68.4 34.1 47.8 41.2 46.8 33 45.6B 38.7 52.8 47.1 40.9 37.4 43.2 44.5 41 43.2C 39.3 34.8 39.8 37.7 33.9 37.9 37.6 35.2 37A 23.6 22.8 20.7 22.2 23.2 22.4 21.2 24.5 22.6B 21.2 22.4 22.3 21.8 22.8 21.9 21.9 23.8 22.3C 23.7 24.8 22.9 20.9 23.5 24.1 23.2 20.8 23A 39.5 39 38.8 46.6 38.7 39.1 39.4 45.9 40.9B 39.5 42.3 42.3 40.7 38.4 41.9 42.2 41.9 41.2C 41.7 45.7 39.9 42.7 40.1 45 40.2 42.2 42.2A 46.9 47.2 49.8 51.3 46.5 45.8 49.4 49.9 48.4B 47.4 48.4 44.6 51.2 48.5 44.7 45.1 51.9 47.7C 47.2 45.1 51.4 51.1 48.7 43.5 49 50.7 48.3A 46.5 42.7 44.6 43.5 45.2 45.2 44.6 43.2 44.4B 40.9 42.8 45.6 38.1 40.8 41.3 47.2 39.6 42C 41.7 50.1 55.5 45.8 48.9 56 51.8 45.8 49.5A 55 57.8 50.2 57.2 55.6 55.9 50.8 56.1 54.8B 50.3 54.4 53.4 53.6 51.7 53.3 55 55.7 53.4C 55.8 60.1 60.8 57.4 60.9 64.8 63.7 56.6 60
CPR2
CPR3
CPR4
CPR5
CPR6
CPR7
CPR8
CPR9
108.2 6.59 6.09
7.31
9.6 0.45 4.75
8.35
56.1 3.47 6.19
1.67
48.1 0.36 0.74
22.6 0.36 1.61
41.9
8.971.1112.4
10.50
CPR10
16.6 1.22
4.40
41.4 0.69
45.3 3.78
CPR1
MIX Sample455-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.
Dev.Average0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270
A 31.3 33.5 32 28.5 32.1 33.3 29.5 27.6 31B 26.8 26.8 30.4 26.3 26.7 27.4 30.7 25.3 27.6C 33.9 28.7 28.7 27.4 31.6 26.8 28.4 25.7 28.9A 13 15.5 14.8 13.3 13.1 15.2 14.8 13.6 14.2B 14.5 15.7 15.1 16.5 14.3 16.4 15.3 16.3 15.5C 14.2 13.2 13.8 15.6 14.2 13.3 14.8 15.8 14.4A 11.6 13.3 13 12.3 12.4 12.3 11.2 11.5 12.2B 10.9 10.9 11.6 10.7 10.5 10.9 11.1 10.8 10.9C 11.6 12.1 10.1 11.6 10.9 12.1 11 10.4 11.2A 24.4 23.4 23.6 24.2 23.7 22.7 23.7 22.9 23.6B 25.3 26.6 24.3 25.2 26.6 26.1 23.2 24.1 25.2C 25.8 25.4 27.5 24.1 25.7 24.5 28.1 26.4 25.9A 27.2 31.1 28.2 33.2 31.4 32.8 27.1 33.2 30.5B 35.1 44.5 34.7 38.1 43.8 37.9 33.1 38.6 38.2C 27.3 33.9 39.6 32.5 30.8 30.1 37.8 34.4 33.3A 31.4 34.3 33.5 33.2 33.2 33.8 34.8 32 33.3B 34.9 33.1 33.3 33.5 36.4 33.3 33 34.1 34C 33.6 33.2 31.9 33.7 34 33 31.9 33.2 33.1A 107 91.1 98.2 99 98.1 92.3 94.3 100 97.5B 91.1 98.6 97.5 92.6 100 97.1 92.3 91.5 95.1C 83.2 89.6 90.7 97.7 93.1 88.9 92.4 92.3 91A 46.6 46.7 45.5 45.1 46.5 48.2 45.6 44.6 46.1B 43.4 46.6 48.3 45.8 46.3 49.4 48.3 44.3 46.6C 42.7 46.2 42.9 42 41.6 45.7 44.8 43.3 43.7A 69.2 69.1 72.1 70.4 68.9 71.8 66.9 73.2 70.2B 59.6 64.2 64.2 62.5 66.1 60 70.1 64.4 63.9C 71.3 66.5 64.4 71.4 72.3 62.9 70.1 68.8 68.5
1.39
67.5 3.26 4.83
94.5 3.31 3.50
45.4
24.9 1.21 4.84
1.56 3.44
34.0 3.90 11.46
33.4 0.46
4.96
11.5 0.67 5.82
CPR12
CPR13
14.7 0.73
CPR20
CPR21
CPR15
CPR16
CPR17
CPR18
1.73 5.9229.1CPR11
MIX Sample455-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.
Dev.Average
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 12.2 11.8 10.5 11.3 9.7 11.2 9.5 12.4 11.1B 9.7 7.2 12 11.9 9.2 9.6 11.1 11.6 10.3C 9.2 10.1 10.6 10.3 8.8 10.1 10 10.6 9.96A 12.1 13.4 14 13.3 13 12.9 14.6 13.2 13.3B 14.7 12.6 15.8 18.3 12.7 12.3 14.8 16.2 14.7C 14.6 14.6 11.8 12.8 18.3 11.5 12.7 11.9 13.5A 8.8 8.2 8.7 8.8 8.7 8.5 8.7 8.9 8.66B 9.2 8.2 7.1 7.2 8.8 7.8 6.8 7.3 7.8C 8.7 9.4 8 7.5 8.3 10 7.7 7.8 8.43A 83.7 115 98.7 85.2 84.7 101 92.5 86.9 93.5B 95.4 97 103 90.2 99.1 102 109 89.2 98.1C 87.8 86.6 73.9 94.1 90.1 86.3 83.6 94.6 87.1A 36.9 32.9 40.6 37.9 37.7 34.6 41.8 38.8 37.7B 37.9 35.6 40.4 40.8 38.5 39.8 46 42 40.1C 33.6 36.2 32.8 37.2 34.5 36.8 35.2 35 35.2A 25.6 26.8 23.2 23.5 25.5 27.1 22.3 24.6 24.8B 22.3 24.4 24.9 23.9 22.6 24.2 23.1 24.4 23.7C 26.4 26 24.1 21.9 26.5 26.4 24.7 22.3 24.8A 39.7 43.3 38.9 39.3 40.1 42.8 39.9 38.8 40.4B 38.6 41.4 42.6 40.5 41.9 42.1 39.3 39.5 40.7C 39.5 41.3 37.8 39.8 36.1 44.2 41.1 49 41.1A 51 51.6 51.9 47 49.4 52.9 53 49.5 50.8B 54.2 52 47 50.3 53.7 54.4 46.4 49.4 50.9C 50.5 52.7 54.2 49.8 49.7 52.2 53.1 48.6 51.4A 45.6 51.2 48 49.8 53.3 50.4 47.9 45.3 48.9B 44.6 45.2 48.3 45.3 45.1 44.9 51.4 48.8 46.7C 51.9 51.3 55.7 58.6 49 50.2 54.6 58.5 53.7A 60.3 60.1 51.9 57.5 61.5 63.5 54 61 58.7B 60.1 59.9 60.2 60 58.3 60.1 64.5 69.4 61.6C 70.6 68.6 71.8 69.1 70.5 61.5 64.1 66.8 67.9
CPR10
CPR6
CPR7
CPR8
CPR9
CPR2
CPR3 5.37
CPR4
CPR5
13.8 0.73
2.48
92.9 5.49
0.62 2.55
37.6
CPR1 5.480.5710.4
5.30
8.3 0.45
4.68 7.47
0.38 0.92
0.29 0.57
3.59 7.21
62.7
5.91
40.7
51.0
49.8
6.59
24.4
MIX Sample546-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.
Dev.Average0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270
A 33.8 30.2 30 31.4 31.2 32.5 31.1 34.3 31.8B 28 27.3 30 31.1 27.9 26.2 31.9 29.2 29C 37 29 30.6 34.3 31.6 29.3 24.4 30.9 30.9A 13.2 12.5 15.9 15.6 13.1 12.7 15 14.4 14.1B 14.9 16.1 14.8 16.2 14.6 16.3 14.2 16.2 15.4C 14.3 13.5 13 12.8 14.4 14.4 14.4 10.3 13.4A 16.2 15.9 13.3 13.9 14 16.4 11.5 11.2 14.1B 14.4 13.2 13.5 12.2 11.3 10.7 10.1 12.3 12.2C 11.6 18.3 14.3 12.8 11.2 12.7 12.3 11.2 13.1A 26.5 23.7 24.6 26.6 26.5 24 24.4 23 24.9B 27.3 29.6 28.6 29.3 29.2 27.5 30 25.4 28.4C 26.7 25.2 25.6 26.7 26.2 28.1 25.5 24.7 26.1A 32.1 38 33.3 39.8 35.6 38.1 33.5 37 35.9B 38.5 42.2 54.1 48.4 45.2 54.8 50.7 45.9 47.5C 34.7 43.5 49 37.8 36.5 44.1 52.1 33.2 41.4A 31.1 32.5 33 31.5 33.2 34.3 32.6 31 32.4B 35.7 35.6 34.1 33.7 39.1 35.6 33.8 37.2 35.6C 32.6 41 33.9 34.7 36.2 33.8 33.1 31.6 34.6A 114 98.7 99.6 109 114 104 106 106 106B 96.8 92.4 102 93.3 102 112 98.4 97.9 99.3C 108 99.5 94.2 103 103 108 93.6 97.1 101A 47.4 48.5 43.1 42.5 46.3 45.1 48.4 46 45.9B 44.7 41.9 43.2 47.1 44.6 44.3 46.2 48.5 45.1C 47.5 41.8 40.3 38.8 42.4 49.1 43.1 44.2 43.4A 81.1 83.5 74.8 79.5 76.3 78.7 72.5 73.8 77.5B 72.5 69.5 74.1 71.4 72.3 70.5 73.4 67.2 71.4C 84.9 77.2 75.3 75.2 79.3 79.7 72.6 78.7 77.9
CPR13
CPR20
CPR21
CPR15
CPR16
CPR17
CPR18
14.3 1.03 7.23CPR12
13.1 0.92 7.02
26.5 1.75 6.63
41.6 5.78 13.89
34.2 1.64 4.79
4.84
102.1 3.75 3.67
44.8 1.28 2.85
CPR11
75.6 3.66
30.6 1.46 4.78
MIX Sample546-Day Surface Resistivity (Lime Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.) Std.
Dev.Average
189
Table E-3. SR (Moist Cured) Testing Results.
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 6 6.1 6.6 6.8 6 6.2 6.8 7.1 6.5B 5.9 5.2 5.9 6 5.9 5.4 5.9 6 5.8C 6.4 5.9 6.9 5.7 6.3 6 6.2 5.6 6.1A 8.8 9.2 9.4 8.7 8.1 9.6 9.2 8.8 9.0B 7.8 8.1 7.9 8 7.9 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.0C 7.7 8.9 8.7 8.8 7.5 9.3 8.9 8.7 8.6A 5.7 5.4 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.4 5.1 5.6 5.4B 5.7 6.1 5.9 6.2 5.7 5.9 5.9 6.1 5.9C 5.5 5.2 5.5 4.9 5.4 5.1 5.5 5 5.3A 27.7 24.1 25.3 24.6 27.2 23.6 25.1 24.6 25.3B 24.2 25.1 25 26.6 25.3 25.8 24.7 27.6 25.5C 24.1 25.9 28.8 28.1 24.7 23.6 29.1 26.9 26.4A 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.2 5.9 6 6.5 6.1 6.2B 6.3 6.5 5.9 6.5 6.1 6.5 6 6.8 6.3C 6.2 6.3 6 6.5 6.3 6.2 6.6 6.8 6.4A 5.9 5.7 5.7 6.1 5.9 6 5.2 6.2 5.8B 5.8 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.8 6 5.5 5.9 5.8C 6.2 6.6 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.8 5.7 6.2 6.2A 16.5 16.1 14.9 18.5 16.5 15.3 17.2 19.4 16.8B 16.4 17 16.9 15 16.3 16.5 15.8 17 16.4C 17.6 16.6 16.3 16.8 16.9 16.2 16 17 16.7A 15 14.4 14.6 14.6 14.8 14.3 14.7 14.2 14.6B 14.4 14.8 13.9 13.5 14 15.1 13.6 13.4 14.1C 11.8 13.1 13.1 13.3 12.9 13 13.3 12.4 12.9A 38.7 40.9 39.3 36.1 36.9 41.3 39.4 35 38.5B 35.4 36 42.4 35 34.9 36.6 42.1 35.4 37.2C 41.2 40.3 39.2 38.8 43 43.5 39.9 37.6 40.4A 36.4 34.1 36.8 38.8 36.4 35.4 38.1 37.4 36.7B 34.7 35 37.2 34.4 34.4 37.5 36.1 33.9 35.4C 31 32.7 32.8 30.5 31.4 30.7 33.6 30.2 31.6
MIX Sample14-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.)
Average Std. Dev.
CPR1 6.1 0.34 5.52
CPR2 8.5 0.49 5.75
CPR3 5.5 0.36 6.49
CPR4 25.7 0.59 2.29
CPR5 6.3 0.11 1.81
CPR6 5.9 0.22 3.67
CPR7 16.6 0.23 1.36
CPR8 13.8 0.88 6.37
CPR9 38.7 1.62 4.19
CPR10 34.6 2.63 7.62
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 13.2 14.4 14.1 13.6 13.4 14.4 14 13.5 13.8B 14.9 13.5 13 17.1 14.3 14 14.8 15.4 14.6C 11.1 13.3 9.9 11.2 10.9 13 10.3 10.9 11.3A 8.6 7.9 7.6 8.1 8.5 7.9 8.2 8.2 8.13B 8.4 8.7 9.1 9.3 8.6 7.8 8.3 8.9 8.64C 7.2 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.1 7.6 7.5 7.45A 6.7 6.6 6.6 5.9 6.4 6.5 6.4 5.6 6.34B 5.7 6.3 6.6 6 5.9 5.9 6.5 6.3 6.15C 5.3 6.1 5.9 5.8 5.8 7 5.9 6.7 6.06A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0A 8.2 8.6 7.3 8.1 8 8.4 7 8.1 7.96B 7.5 6.1 6.6 6.2 7.7 6.4 6.5 6.1 6.64C 7.6 7.4 7.6 6.7 7.3 7.4 6.9 7.9 7.35A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CPR21 0.0 0.00 0.00
CPR20 0.0 0.00 0.00
CPR18 0.0 0.00 0.00
CPR17 0.0 0.00 0.00
CPR16 7.3 0.66 9.06
CPR15 0.0 0.00 0.00
CPR13 6.2 0.14 2.27
CPR12 8.1 0.60 7.38
CPR11 13.3 1.72 12.98
MIX Sample14-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.)
Average Std. Dev.
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 6.3 7.2 7.4 8 6.1 6.7 7.8 8.1 7.2B 6.3 6.2 7 6.6 6.1 6 6.9 6.6 6.46C 7.4 6.9 7.2 6.5 6.7 7.4 6.8 6.5 6.93A 9.3 9.8 10.5 10 9 9.5 10.6 10.1 9.85B 9 8.9 9.2 9 8.8 8.7 9.4 9 9C 8.9 10.3 9.9 9.7 8.9 10.7 10.2 9.7 9.79A 5.5 5.8 5.7 5.9 5.4 5.7 5.4 5.8 5.65B 6.1 6 6.8 6.5 6.1 6.2 6.7 6.6 6.38C 5.9 5.7 5.8 5.3 5.9 5.6 5.7 5.5 5.68A 46.4 44 44.3 44.4 48.4 41 43.7 44.2 44.6B 45.6 47.5 44 47.5 42.3 46 43.9 44.9 45.2C 47.4 40.1 46.6 46 41.6 38.6 49.3 47.8 44.7A 8.2 7.6 7.9 8.3 7.9 7.9 8 7.8 7.95B 8.1 8.2 7.6 8.2 8.3 8.2 7.5 8.4 8.06C 8 8.4 8.3 9 8 8 8.2 8.9 8.35A 7.4 7.1 6.8 7.2 7.2 6.8 6.7 7.1 7.04B 6.8 7.1 6.9 7 6.7 7.3 6.7 6.8 6.91C 7.4 8.2 7.2 7.5 7.2 8.3 7.1 7.2 7.51A 28.2 25.4 29.8 31.4 28.6 28.5 31.8 31.6 29.4B 28.5 28.6 28.7 25.9 29.8 28.4 28 27 28.1C 31.6 27.2 27.6 29.8 29.6 26.5 27.7 28.9 28.6A 25.4 23.8 25.6 25.6 26.2 24.5 25.2 24.9 25.2B 24.3 27.3 23.6 23.4 23.5 25.4 23.7 23.6 24.4C 24.2 23 23.9 23 23.9 21.9 23.8 23.6 23.4A 33.4 36.6 32.4 32.1 35 35.5 33.7 32.7 33.9B 27.5 34.5 32.6 33.2 29.2 33.9 34.4 32.7 32.3C 36.3 34.9 35.5 32.5 34.2 34.6 34.6 31.6 34.3A 35.9 33.6 32.7 33.9 32.2 33.5 31.4 35.2 33.6B 33.6 32.7 32.9 34.2 32.2 36 31.5 33.1 33.3C 29.5 28.7 30.2 25.7 30 25.5 30.8 26.8 28.4
33.5 1.08 3.23
31.7 2.90 9.13
28.7 0.66 2.28
24.3 0.87 3.58
8.1 0.21 2.54
7.2 0.32 4.42
44.8 0.35 0.79
9.5 0.47 4.96
5.9 0.41 6.98
5.430.376.9
CPR5
CPR10
CPR1
CPR8
CPR9
CPR2
CPR3
CPR6
CPR7
CPR4
MIX Sample28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.)
Average Std. Dev. 0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270
A 19.3 18.2 18.5 20.5 18.7 18.5 17.7 20.3 19B 18 18.9 18 16.8 17.8 19.5 18.1 17.1 18C 15.3 18.7 13 14.8 15.2 17.7 13 14.7 15.3A 10.1 8.8 7.3 10.1 9.2 9.2 7.9 10.4 9.13B 9.4 8.8 10 9.2 9.6 9.1 8.3 9.9 9.29C 8.2 8.4 8.5 7.9 8.1 7.9 8.5 7.9 8.18A 6.8 6.8 6.5 6 6.8 6.7 6.5 6.3 6.55B 6.7 6.5 6.4 6.5 6.2 6.4 6.8 6.3 6.48C 5.9 6.4 6.1 7.3 5.9 6.5 6.3 7.3 6.46A 9.3 7.7 8 8.1 7.6 7.6 7.1 7.9 7.91B 9 7.5 8.2 7.6 8.7 7.2 8.4 7.6 8.03C 8 7.5 8 7.2 10 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.9A 8.5 9.2 7.2 7.5 8.8 8.9 7.4 7.1 8.08B 8.1 6.7 6.7 6.3 8.2 6.4 6.9 6.3 6.95C 8.8 8.2 7.9 7.9 8.6 8 7.8 7.9 8.14A 11.5 10.8 13 12.9 11.5 10.4 11.5 12.7 11.8B 9.6 9.9 10.5 10.8 9.6 10 10.1 10.8 10.2C 12.5 12.9 13.6 12.2 12.2 13 13.5 11.7 12.7A 14.8 14.8 14.6 13.8 14.6 14.8 15.6 14.8 14.7B 13.6 14.6 13.5 14.9 13.8 13.6 13.2 13.7 13.9C 12.6 13.7 13.6 14 12.8 13.7 12.9 13.6 13.4A 12.3 12.8 14 14.1 12.7 12.9 13.9 13.1 13.2B 14.1 13.4 12.6 11.8 13.4 12.9 13.5 12.1 13C 13 13.2 14.1 12.2 14.1 12.8 13.4 12.7 13.2A 12.9 17.4 15.7 14 12.7 13.5 11.8 13.8 14B 13.6 13.6 10.7 11.8 11.2 11.7 11.5 11.2 11.9C 14.6 13.1 10.9 12.6 15 12.3 11.9 11.7 12.8
1.04 8.05
14.0 0.69 4.93
13.1 0.13 1.03
0.67 8.66
11.6 1.29 11.13
0.05 0.73
7.9 0.07 0.87
1.90 10.92
8.9 0.60 6.78
CPR21
CPR17
CPR18
17.4
6.5
7.7
12.9
CPR20
CPR15
CPR16
CPR11
CPR12
CPR13
MIX Sample28-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.)
Average Std. Dev.
190
Table E-3. Continued.
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 7.4 7.3 7.9 8.8 7.3 7.5 8 8.8 7.88B 6.6 6.7 7.1 7.3 6.8 6.5 7 7.2 6.9C 8.4 7.5 8.6 7.2 7.9 7.3 8.6 7.3 7.85A 10.2 11 11.1 11 9.7 10 10.6 10.8 10.6B 9.6 9.6 9.8 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.9 9.6 9.63C 9.6 10.8 10.3 10 9.7 11.1 10.1 10.3 10.2A 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.8 5.7 6 5.79B 6.8 6.6 7 7 6.4 6.5 7 7 6.79C 6.2 5.9 6.4 5.9 6.3 6 6.2 6 6.11A 68.3 58.1 62 63.8 68.5 57.1 63.7 65.1 63.3B 62.4 64.4 54.8 67 61.2 65.4 63.2 69.2 63.5C 57.1 63.7 70.4 64.5 60.3 59.8 72.5 69.7 64.8A 11.6 12.8 12.6 13.4 11.9 12.2 12 12.4 12.4B 13.5 12.5 11.9 12.7 13 13 11.8 12.6 12.6C 12.6 11.6 12.7 13.2 12.2 13.2 12.4 13.7 12.7A 9.6 9.4 9.3 10.1 9.8 9.6 9.2 9.6 9.58B 9.2 10.1 9 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.4 9.1 9.35C 9.7 10.7 9.9 9.7 9.8 10.7 9.2 10.1 9.98A 38.6 37.3 41.2 42.2 37.9 34.9 45.4 43 40.1B 34.2 34.3 41 37.8 37.4 40 39.3 36.3 37.5C 41 38.6 37.6 42.5 41.2 34.9 36.6 38.9 38.9A 35.2 32.6 33.8 34.6 37 34.5 35.6 33.6 34.6B 32.7 34.1 31.5 32.3 32.9 33.1 32.1 32.9 32.7C 30.9 32.2 30.3 31.3 32.9 32.9 34.8 31.6 32.1A 37.7 41.4 39.2 35 38.6 40.9 40.7 36.4 38.7B 35.4 38.3 42.7 37.8 35.1 38.5 39.2 36.9 38C 41.2 39.7 38.4 36.7 39.4 46 49.6 38.6 41.2A 37.7 38.5 39.6 38.6 37.9 39 37.3 41.6 38.8B 38.8 43 39 39.8 38.9 42.2 38.5 37.9 39.8C 36.3 33.1 35.8 31.5 37.1 32.4 34.5 32.2 34.1
CPR10 37.6 3.02 8.04
CPR9 39.3 1.68 4.28
CPR8 33.1 1.31 3.94
CPR7 38.8 1.26 3.26
CPR6 9.6 0.32 3.29
CPR5 12.6 0.18 1.41
CPR4 63.8 0.79 1.24
CPR3 6.2 0.51 8.19
CPR2 10.1 0.47 4.64
CPR1 7.5 0.56 7.37
MIX Sample56-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.)
Average Std. Dev. 0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270
A 21.5 22.2 21.2 20.5 22.4 22.1 22.6 19.8 21.5B 22.5 23.5 20.9 25.7 23.6 22.7 20.2 26.5 23.2C 17.6 20.7 15 17 17.8 21.4 14.7 17.3 17.7A 10 10.8 9.6 11.1 10.4 9.6 9.1 11.1 10.2B 10.2 9.4 9.2 10.8 10.4 9.6 10.9 10.1 10.1C 9 8.4 9.1 8.3 8.9 8.5 9 8.7 8.74A 7.8 7.8 7.5 8.1 6.8 8 7.7 8.2 7.74B 7.3 7.1 7.4 7.1 7.4 7.1 7.7 7.4 7.31C 7.4 7.3 8 7.4 8.3 7.9 8.2 7.6 7.76A 8.6 8.9 8.8 9.4 8.6 9.1 8 9 8.8B 9.8 9 8.8 9 9.7 8.4 8.8 8.9 9.05C 8.8 8.6 9 8.1 8.8 8.5 9 8.2 8.63A 8.1 12.7 9.8 11.3 11.1 12.6 10.8 11.3 11B 11.1 8.9 10.1 8.7 11.3 9 9.8 9.1 9.75C 11.9 10.2 11.2 10.9 11.7 10.3 10.8 11.1 11A 16.7 15.7 17.3 17.6 16.2 15.8 17.8 17.5 16.8B 13.5 12.9 14.2 13.5 13 13 14.1 13.4 13.5C 16.9 17.4 18.4 15.6 16.6 11.5 18.4 16 16.4A 18 17.4 14.6 16.5 18.2 13.5 19.1 15.7 16.6B 13.7 14.8 13.6 17.8 14.3 17.5 17.3 15.7 15.6C 16.1 16.8 17 17.2 18.7 15.9 18.1 16.7 17.1A 11.4 16.5 11.4 11.3 15.5 16.8 11.2 16.8 13.9B 11.8 16.1 11.3 15.2 11.2 16.3 16.9 13.7 14.1C 16.9 16.8 16.6 18 16.6 15.7 16.7 16.1 16.7A 15.3 17.6 15.5 16.3 17.2 17.8 15.6 16.1 16.4B 16.3 15.1 15.6 14.8 15 15.3 16 14.8 15.4C 17.7 17.5 16.1 17.4 16.9 17.5 16 16.9 17
20.8 2.83 13.59
9.7 0.81 8.42
7.6 0.25 3.33
8.8 0.21 2.42
10.6 0.71 6.76
15.5 1.83 11.76
16.4 0.76 4.61
14.9 1.57 10.56
CPR21 16.3 0.83 5.11
CPR16
CPR17
CPR18
CPR20
CPR11
CPR12
CPR13
CPR15
MIX Sample56-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.)
Average Std. Dev.
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 6.4 7.5 7.9 8.4 8.1 7.1 8.4 8.6 7.8B 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.7 7.5 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.43C 8.9 7.9 9 7.7 8.8 7.7 8.3 7.6 8.24A 10.7 12.1 11.5 10.9 10.3 11.3 11.1 11.7 11.2B 9.2 10.8 11 10.4 10.5 11.1 10.8 10.5 10.5C 10.4 10.8 10.9 10.4 10.1 10.7 10.6 10.9 10.6A 6.3 6.2 6.6 6.2 6.4 6.4 6.2 6.7 6.38B 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.5 6.9 7 7.2 7.2 7.14C 6.7 6.2 6.7 6.2 6.5 5.9 7 6.1 6.41A 79.6 74.9 77.7 78 92 72.5 79.9 78.1 79.1B 70.3 77 78 81 71.3 75.5 76.5 78.9 76.1C 65.5 81.4 88.1 79.2 73.6 79.5 87.8 75.7 78.9A 17.2 17 18 20 16 17.9 18.7 18.2 17.9B 18.7 20 17.4 17.7 18.4 19.8 17.2 18.4 18.5C 18 18.3 19 20.8 18.1 19.8 19 20.6 19.2A 13 12.2 12.1 12.2 13.1 12 11.6 12.5 12.3B 12 12.8 12 11.9 12 12.9 11.7 11.9 12.2C 13 14.6 13.3 13.7 13.5 14.4 12.6 13.3 13.6A 43.9 38.4 45.6 45.9 42.4 38.6 42.1 48.4 43.2B 41.1 38.6 40.8 36.9 40.1 40.6 38.2 37.1 39.2C 43.9 38.3 38 41.5 40.8 37.6 38.7 39.8 39.8A 43.6 39.6 42.3 38.7 43.5 41.7 39.4 39.2 41B 38.4 38.2 38.1 37.3 38.3 44.6 35.1 38.5 38.6C 36.6 36.5 38.5 37.2 33.9 38.4 38.4 37.4 37.1A 38.1 35.5 36.1 37.8 41 45.8 38.8 37.1 38.8B 37 41.8 38.6 36.8 34.8 40 39.2 35.8 38C 42.1 42.6 39.2 36.8 41 40.3 39.5 37.4 39.9A 45 43.8 47.2 46.5 47.1 45.3 45.5 46.1 45.8B 42.9 47.1 41.6 42.5 42.6 48.3 47.7 44.9 44.7C 40.9 39.4 41.1 35.3 41.2 41.1 41.2 38.8 39.9
38.9 0.94 2.41
43.5 3.16 7.26
40.7 2.14 5.25
38.9 1.96 5.05
18.5 0.66 3.59
12.7 0.76 5.99
78.0 1.68 2.16
10.8 0.37 3.39
6.6 0.43 6.47
5.200.417.8
CPR5
CPR10
CPR1
CPR8
CPR9
CPR2
CPR3
CPR6
CPR7
CPR4
MIX Sample91-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.)
Average Std. Dev. 0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270
A 25.8 23.2 24.5 22.3 24.8 24.4 24.9 23.3 24.2B 25.4 22.8 22.6 26.5 24.7 23.8 23.6 25.9 24.4C 18.3 21.2 15.4 19 18.6 24.1 15.7 18.6 18.9A 11 10 8.4 10.8 11.1 10.1 8.4 10.7 10.1B 10.9 11 11.6 11.5 11.1 10.7 11.9 11.1 11.2C 0 9.6 9.2 9.7 9.7 9.6 9 9.5 8.29A 8.5 8.4 8.8 7.7 8.4 8.5 8.2 7.7 8.28B 7.8 8.5 8 8.5 8.4 8 7.9 8.1 8.15C 7.8 8.5 8.4 7.6 8.1 8.4 8.5 8.3 8.2A 12.1 10.4 8.9 9.6 9.4 9.8 7.5 9.8 9.69B 11.6 15.3 8.7 8.8 11.9 11.3 9.3 8.7 10.7C 9.8 9.7 9.3 9.2 8.8 10.1 10.1 10 9.63A 17.7 18.2 13.4 15.8 18.1 18.5 13.7 15.5 16.4B 16.6 13.1 13.5 13.3 14.9 13.3 13.3 12.3 13.8C 16.4 14.4 13.5 16.1 17.1 16.6 16.8 15.4 15.8A 20.8 21.4 23.2 23.3 20.8 21.3 22.5 23.2 22.1B 18 18.1 19.4 17.6 18.3 17.3 19.6 17.9 18.3C 21 21.3 23.1 20.7 21.6 22.3 24.1 20.7 21.9A 36.5 39.6 37.1 36.8 35.9 40 36.2 36.4 37.3B 34.5 35.2 35.1 37.5 34 34.7 35.1 37.2 35.4C 34.3 35.8 36.3 36.9 34.7 35.7 34.9 36.6 35.7A 21.4 21.9 24.7 24.2 22.4 22.1 24.9 23 23.1B 24.2 23.9 24.8 20.5 24 23.2 23.4 21.9 23.2C 20.8 20.7 22.6 23.8 21.8 21.2 23.3 21.9 22A 24 21.1 20.2 21.2 23.1 20.7 22 21.4 21.7B 19.6 18.6 17.6 20.5 20.3 19.1 18.4 19.7 19.2C 17.5 19.6 19.8 20.1 18.4 19.6 18 20.5 19.2
1.45 7.22
36.1 1.04 2.87
22.8 0.67 2.92
1.35 8.83
20.7 2.13 10.27
0.06 0.77
10.0 0.60 6.03
3.13 13.93
9.9 1.48 15.01
CPR21
CPR17
CPR18
22.5
8.2
15.3
20.0
CPR20
CPR15
CPR16
CPR11
CPR12
CPR13
MIX Sample91-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.)
Average Std. Dev.
191
Table E-3. Continued.
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 8.3 7.8 9.7 9.4 8.1 8.9 10.4 10.3 9.11B 8.7 8.5 8.9 8.7 7.7 8.7 9.6 8.3 8.64C 9.4 8.9 10.8 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.8 9.7 9.64A 11.1 12.6 12.9 12.4 11.3 12.5 12.6 11.8 12.2B 11.5 10.4 11.2 11.1 10.9 10.8 10.8 11.1 11C 11 12.7 11.9 11.9 10.6 12.5 12.1 11.9 11.8A 6.5 6.7 6.8 6.5 6.3 6.8 6.6 6.7 6.61B 7.7 7.8 7.6 8.2 8 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.69C 7 7 7.7 6.8 6.7 7 7.4 6.8 7.05A 89.1 79.7 80.2 77.5 88.4 76.1 81.1 77.3 81.2B 75.7 84 79.7 87 71.1 78.6 77.4 86.9 80.1C 72.9 70.2 99.1 77.2 78.5 74.4 97.6 87.2 82.1A 27 27.3 27.6 26.8 26.9 26.3 29.2 30 27.6B 29.2 31.2 27.3 28.3 28.8 30.9 28 28.6 29C 27.4 29.8 29.1 31.8 27.1 27.8 28.3 31.9 29.2A 17.9 17.5 16.7 18.2 18.4 17.8 16.6 18.5 17.7B 17 17.2 17.2 18.6 16.8 18 17.4 18.6 17.6C 19.2 22.3 18.2 18.7 19.5 21.6 19.7 18.6 19.7A 45.7 43.1 45.6 43 44.8 39 44.4 39.5 43.1B 41 37.5 42.1 39.5 38.4 41.1 42.7 39.4 40.2C 42 39.2 40.6 40.2 40.6 39.3 41.2 41.2 40.5A 50.7 44.9 47.9 48 45.8 47 48.4 47.4 47.5B 44 49.6 43.8 42.7 44.2 55.5 43.6 48.5 46.5C 44.3 41.4 48.1 43.2 44.1 46.1 44.4 45.3 44.6A 42.3 46.9 41.7 41.4 38.7 48.7 42.4 39.2 42.7B 39.1 42.2 47.3 41.2 35.6 42.8 47.2 41.2 42.1C 44.7 51.4 44.7 41.4 47.6 54.4 41.3 41.3 45.9A 58.2 59.2 60.6 59.5 55 59.3 61.1 62 59.4B 55.9 63 57 59 53.3 62.7 56.3 56.9 58C 55.5 48.5 52.8 51.4 56.9 50.4 56.7 46.7 52.4
CPR7
CPR8
CPR9
CPR10
81.1 1.04 1.29
CPR6
28.6 0.84 2.95
18.3 1.20 6.54
CPR1
7.1 0.54 7.60
11.7 0.61 5.21
5.480.509.1
41.3 1.60 3.88
46.2 1.47 3.18
43.5 2.03 4.67
56.6 3.71 6.56
CPR2
CPR3
CPR4
CPR5
MIX Sample182-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.)
Average Std. Dev. 0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270
A 25.5 27.6 27.7 23.7 23.9 26.1 27 24.9 25.8B 27.9 27.9 25.3 31.2 27.3 28.2 25.1 32.3 28.2C 21.8 25.4 18.4 20.8 21.7 25.5 19.1 20.8 21.7A 13.4 10.3 10.6 12.3 11.6 11.1 10.4 12.3 11.5B 12.3 10.9 11.5 11 10.9 10.6 11.9 11.5 11.3C 10.5 9.8 9.6 9.7 10.9 9.4 10 9.4 9.91A 9.2 8.6 9.2 8.2 8.9 9.1 9.3 8.2 8.84B 8.6 8.3 8.8 9.2 8.3 8.7 9.1 8.8 8.73C 7.6 8.8 8.3 8.4 7.8 8.8 8.2 9.4 8.41A 15.9 16.6 14.9 17.3 15.5 16.8 14.9 17.3 16.2B 19.5 17.1 17.6 17.3 19 16.5 16.8 16.9 17.6C 16.5 16.7 16.3 15.7 17.1 16 16.4 15.6 16.3A 25.8 27.9 21.2 22.1 26.1 27.7 19.9 22 24.1B 23.4 18.6 19.1 17.5 23.2 18.4 19 17.4 19.6C 24.2 21.5 20.5 21.8 23.7 19.7 22.8 22.1 22A 29.8 30.9 29.8 32.7 30.6 27.4 31.3 32.2 30.6B 25.9 24 26.2 24.8 23.4 24.9 24.7 24.2 24.8C 29.9 31 31.4 30.4 29.2 30 32.8 29.4 30.5A 63.8 67.9 65.5 62.1 57.8 61.4 60.9 59.8 62.4B 55.2 62 61.3 54.8 52 64.8 60 65.6 59.5C 64.2 59.6 60.8 64.3 60.3 61.8 64.8 67.4 62.9A 29.4 31.2 34.6 31.2 31.5 29.6 31.6 33.4 31.6B 35.5 38.3 32.4 31.6 34.7 35 31.3 28 33.4C 33.2 31.6 34.1 36.2 32.8 30.8 35.2 32.1 33.3A 45.2 45.3 39.4 41.1 42 40.3 42.2 43.9 42.4B 45.8 44.6 41.8 40.6 38.7 39 43.3 41.2 41.9C 67 40.2 36.4 37.3 42.9 38.2 36 37.6 42
CPR21
CPR16
CPR17
CPR18
CPR20
CPR11
CPR12
CPR13
CPR15
25.2 3.27 12.97
10.9 0.87 7.98
8.7 0.22 2.54
16.7 0.79 4.76
21.9 2.26 10.32
28.6 3.34 11.68
42.1 0.30 0.71
61.6 1.86 3.02
32.7 1.00 3.07
MIX Sample182-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.)
Average Std. Dev.
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 10 8.7 9.7 11.8 8.9 8.7 10.9 11.4 10B 8.9 7.5 9.7 9.5 8.8 8.1 8.8 9.7 8.88C 9.8 10.3 10.8 9.2 10.3 9.5 9.8 9.3 9.88A 11.7 13.6 13.8 12.8 12.5 13.7 14.2 12.8 13.1B 11.7 11.3 12 11.3 12.3 11.2 11.6 11.8 11.7C 11.6 14.1 13.1 12.7 11.6 13.9 13 13.4 12.9A 6 9 8.3 7.1 6 8.9 7.3 7.6 7.53B 7.5 8.2 8.6 6.6 8.4 8.7 6.9 7.2 7.76C 8.1 6.4 6.1 8.6 5.9 4.9 5.9 4.8 6.34A 95.2 75.9 89.2 92.3 97.7 79.7 92.6 87.1 88.7B 91.6 89.4 86.3 95.5 85.6 93 87.5 96.4 90.7C 81.4 97.6 95.5 97.8 81.2 84.2 89.8 89.6 89.6A 38.3 29.1 25.8 39.5 36.9 34.9 28.5 34.2 33.4B 35 31.2 44.3 34.6 38.4 36.7 33.6 33 35.9C 34.6 39.9 35.4 33 33.2 33.8 33.6 42.3 35.7A 20.1 23.7 22.5 22.8 23.7 21.6 20.2 22.2 22.1B 23.7 22.8 21.9 23.3 24.4 24.5 22.1 22.9 23.2C 24.5 27.8 26.6 27.6 24.6 25.4 24.7 24.1 25.7A 44 39.3 41.6 38.2 46.5 41.7 42.1 48.3 42.7B 43.3 49.3 40.7 38.7 40.5 40.9 40.2 40 41.7C 43.6 33.9 40.8 42.4 45.5 41.2 42.7 44.3 41.8A 66.3 57.5 57.8 58.9 56.3 56.9 60.2 57.9 59B 52.5 58.7 53.8 56.4 58.3 60.5 53 56.1 56.2C 53.6 57 57.2 51 54 51.3 56.6 55.3 54.5A 57.4 64.8 64.2 51.9 55.6 52.5 50.3 49.8 55.8B 62 57.4 62.1 62.7 54.9 59.8 78.6 53.4 61.4C 69.2 68.9 63.3 59.8 61.3 58.9 62.5 58 62.7A 87 90.9 87.1 88 86.5 88.4 74.9 86.7 86.2B 92.7 82.3 60.8 84.9 70.5 104 82.2 99.4 84.6C 83.8 87 92 72.3 97.6 82.3 83.7 83.5 85.3
85.3 0.82 0.96
3.67
56.5 2.26 4.00
6.11
23.7 1.82 7.71
1.33
CPR1
89.7 0.98 1.09
6.480.629.6
6.40
7.2 0.76
CPR10
10.59
12.6 0.80
35.0 1.38
42.1 0.56
60.0
3.94
CPR6
CPR7
CPR8
CPR9
CPR2
CPR3
CPR4
CPR5
MIX Sample364-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.)
Average Std. Dev. 0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270
A 36.7 34.2 35.4 35.6 32.5 34.8 35.2 30.8 34.4B 33.1 31.3 32.6 34.7 32.9 31.1 32 36.9 33.1C 28.5 27.7 25.2 25.3 26.8 30.5 24.7 24.3 26.6A 13.4 11.8 10.7 13.1 13 11.8 10.6 14.2 12.3B 12.4 12.6 14 13.5 12.5 12.8 13.7 14.1 13.2C 12.7 11 11.4 11 11.1 11 12.2 11.4 11.5A 9.9 9.7 9.5 8.6 10 10.1 9.5 8.7 9.5B 9 9.2 9.6 10.1 9.4 9.2 9.7 9.2 9.43C 8.2 9.3 8.9 10.1 8.4 9.1 8.8 10.5 9.16A 25.9 23.8 21.2 25.9 25.7 23.8 19 24.6 23.7B 26.2 23.6 24.5 21.5 26.5 22.7 24.7 22.6 24C 22.8 22.1 21.9 21.6 21.7 22.9 22.8 21.7 22.2A 30.1 39.6 26.8 28.8 34.1 40.3 28.2 30.2 32.3B 31.3 34.2 26.3 25.8 28.6 27.8 25.5 24.7 28C 29.1 25.2 28.5 29.2 31.9 28.6 27.1 28.3 28.5A 29.3 34.2 40.2 43.4 38.6 36.8 38.1 36.8 37.2B 29.4 28.7 33.1 28 27.3 27.6 30.7 28.4 29.2C 31.8 36.5 36.2 32.7 33.7 32.1 36.5 32.5 34A 94.1 96.3 106 93.9 98.9 96.2 100 101 98.2B 88.2 92.4 90.3 91.2 93.8 90.1 88.6 93.1 91C 90.3 97.7 90.5 92.4 96 95.3 92.6 91.8 93.3A 38.6 37 36.5 45 35.4 39.8 41.3 43.3 39.6B 44.4 43.2 45.5 36.6 41.8 44.4 42.9 43.2 42.8C 47.2 43 44.8 44.7 42.6 42.4 43.1 44.1 44A 82.3 72.4 71.8 70.5 79.5 66.4 68 66.1 72.1B 68.2 67.1 64.8 62.9 69.1 62.2 68.1 65.1 65.9C 62 59.5 58.6 64.7 60.4 59.5 59.1 64.4 61
2.26 5.35
33.4 4.04 12.09
66.4 5.56 8.38
94.2 3.69 3.92
42.1
23.3 0.99 4.26
29.6 2.32 7.86
CPR21
31.4 4.16 13.26
12.3 0.86 6.99
9.4 0.18 1.89
CPR16
CPR17
CPR18
CPR20
CPR11
CPR12
CPR13
CPR15
MIX Sample364-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.)
Average Std. Dev.
192
Table E-3. Continued.
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 11.3 10.8 12.5 12.6 11 10 13.3 12.5 11.8B 10.1 9.8 10.4 10.2 9.8 9.8 10.4 10.9 10.2C 11.9 11.6 13.1 10.8 12.2 11.8 12.5 10.7 11.8A 14.6 16 16.2 16 14.4 16.4 16.4 15.9 15.7B 13.8 13.3 13.3 14.2 13.1 13.7 14 13.3 13.6C 12.8 5.9 14.8 14.6 13.9 16 15.1 15.2 13.5A 8.2 9.3 8.7 9.3 8.1 9.5 9.6 10.1 9.1B 9.7 9.7 9.7 10.4 9.7 9.8 10.2 10.4 9.95C 9.5 9 9.8 8.9 9.2 8.8 10.1 9 9.29A 116 98.2 119 108 119 98.2 112 113 110B 111 112 106 115 115 122 114 117 114C 96.4 103 132 120 105 101 127 113 112A 44.4 44.9 47.6 46.3 43 45.6 47.4 45.4 45.6B 47.9 54.1 45.6 44.3 47.6 48.8 46.5 44 47.4C 49.7 45.4 50.8 52.6 46.3 46.2 47.6 53.8 49.1A 25.8 27.5 25.8 27.8 26.9 29.4 26.9 28.6 27.3B 25.6 25.2 25.8 30.8 27 22.5 25.8 30.2 26.6C 26.3 26.6 27.2 27.1 27 25.8 27.5 26.3 26.7A 50.6 52.4 50.6 47.9 48.9 50.3 49.7 46.1 49.6B 45.8 40.7 44.7 47.1 45.3 41.7 45 47.8 44.8C 47.9 47.7 44.1 45.4 47.5 47.4 44.7 44.5 46.2A 64.2 58.8 61.8 57.2 60.6 57.4 60.7 61.2 60.2B 60.2 66.5 67.2 61.5 62.7 67.6 68.1 61.8 64.5C 47.4 51.6 50 59.8 55.6 51.9 55.7 61.4 54.2A 49.5 47.6 50.8 56.8 51.3 47.8 53.3 56.6 51.7B 45.5 48.3 54.4 49.8 47.5 49 54.2 49.9 49.8C 54.8 50 52.8 54.3 51.4 50.1 53.2 57.2 53A 82.8 85.9 88.2 84.5 80.3 85.6 84.8 86.2 84.8B 76.3 85 84.3 92.3 76.7 85.8 79.8 93.7 84.2C 80.2 72.3 83.6 76.3 81.5 77.1 87.2 74.9 79.1
CPR10
8.79
9.4 0.45 4.73
82.7 3.12 3.77
46.8 2.47 5.28
59.6 5.17 8.66
1.56
51.5 1.59 3.08
1.74 3.67
26.9 0.39 1.45
47.3
CPR8
CPR9
112.1 1.75CPR4
CPR5
CPR6
CPR7
CPR2
CPR3
CPR1 8.280.9311.3
14.3 1.26
Reading Locations (Deg.)Average Std.
Dev.MIX Sample
455-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)COV (%)
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 36.4 34.1 37.5 35.7 35.5 35.6 36.7 37.7 36.2B 37.5 41 33.1 35.7 37.5 42 33.9 35.7 37.1C 28.6 27.3 24.5 35.2 29.8 27.3 24.7 34.5 29A 13.8 12.7 11.2 13.7 13.9 12.2 12.1 13.8 12.9B 13.1 12.9 13.7 14.5 13.1 12.7 14.6 14.3 13.6C 12.5 11.9 11.7 12.4 12.1 12 12.1 12.5 12.2A 11.2 11.6 11.3 10.8 11.9 11.7 11.6 11 11.4B 10.6 10.6 10.5 10.6 10.9 11.1 10.5 11.1 10.7C 9.9 11.9 11 10.7 9.7 11.3 10.8 11.5 10.9A 29.1 25.6 20.9 27.1 27.8 24.9 18.4 28.1 25.2B 32.3 22.1 23.8 22.2 26.4 25.6 25.5 22.8 25.1C 26.9 21.6 23.2 23.1 23.5 22.6 24.5 22.3 23.5A 42.7 48.3 34.6 40.5 48.9 49 35.4 35.3 41.8B 37.3 35.8 32.4 29.5 34.8 35.2 35.7 30.8 33.9C 38.4 32.9 35.6 36 40.5 35.3 33.8 34.6 35.9A 39.8 33.8 38.2 36.5 33.8 33.7 36.2 35.8 36B 36.3 28.5 29.6 26.4 25.2 30 31.4 28 29.4C 34 32.3 33.8 32.9 34.8 34.2 37.5 35.1 34.3A 108 114 101 104 92.1 115 103 0.1 91.9B 89.6 86.7 88.5 93 91.3 91.5 91.7 94.4 90.8C 108 85.4 85.7 104 92.9 98.4 95.6 92.9 95.3A 37 42.9 36.6 46.9 36.8 39.9 38.7 42.4 40.2B 47.5 39.5 42.2 32.5 42.5 39.6 41.2 32.4 39.7C 44.6 41.2 39.2 42.5 37.8 37.4 41.8 41.7 40.8A 83.2 71.4 69.5 70.4 76.7 68.2 75.5 70.2 73.1B 77 70.3 70.5 69.9 72.7 75.2 69.7 73.8 72.4C 71.2 72.2 64.4 66.5 62.2 61.8 61.7 65.7 65.7
CPR11
CPR12
CPR13
CPR20
CPR15
CPR16
CPR17
CPR18
34.1 4.42 12.97
12.9 0.73 5.67
11.0 0.35 3.16
24.6 0.98 4.00
37.2 4.12 11.06
33.2 3.41 10.25
92.7 2.33 2.51
40.2 0.55 1.37
70.4 4.09 5.81CPR21
Average Std. Dev.
Reading Locations (Deg.)MIX Sample455-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%)
0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270A 10.4 12 11.7 10.1 10.3 11.3 11.6 9.4 10.9B 9.5 10.3 10.2 9 9.7 10.6 10 9.4 9.84C 11 10.1 12.1 11.2 11.3 10.3 12.1 10.3 11.1A 13.8 14.2 15.2 14.9 13.5 14.8 16 14.8 14.7B 13.1 12.6 13 13 13.6 12.6 12.8 12.4 12.9C 12.9 13.8 13.5 15.4 13.7 14.3 14 15.7 14.2A 7.7 8.5 8.1 8.7 7.8 8.8 8.4 8.9 8.36B 9.4 9.3 9.6 9.5 9.3 9.2 9.7 9.7 9.46C 8.8 8.7 9 8.6 8.8 8.6 9 8.5 8.75A 113 107 103 102 117 110 106 102 108B 104 114 102 109 102 117 99.6 107 107C 94.1 111 119 93.4 98.2 112 118 95.5 105A 44.7 42.4 48 43.5 45.4 43.8 44.3 42.1 44.3B 44.8 44.8 44.2 43.8 45.1 46.3 46.1 46.5 45.2C 43.1 51.2 46.9 43.7 45.4 52.5 45.9 46.1 46.9A 28.1 28.5 31.7 28.7 29.3 30.2 30.8 30.5 29.7B 27.8 25.2 27.3 31.3 28.6 26.5 27.5 31.6 28.2C 26.8 26.5 27.6 29 27 27.1 27.5 29.1 27.6A 47.3 44.1 47.2 48.7 47.3 41.7 45.2 48.1 46.2B 43.2 45.7 40.3 37.1 43.8 38.8 41.2 40.5 41.3C 44.5 43.1 42.8 43.5 43.5 40.2 43.6 44.7 43.2A 64.4 61.1 63.4 62.7 64.4 62.5 61.3 60.9 62.6B 66.6 68.3 74.7 67 68.1 69.6 72.6 58.1 68.1C 61.1 59.2 59.5 74.2 71.3 72.3 59.9 60.5 64.8A 55.6 55.9 53 51.9 55.4 64 54 53.7 55.4B 49.6 53.6 57.8 52.5 48.7 54 55.5 54.8 53.3C 57.5 60 59.5 53.8 56.4 62.5 59.1 55.8 58.1A 91.7 94.2 83.8 92.8 87.7 95 90.9 93.7 91.2B 87.1 94.1 93.1 107 86.4 96.1 92.1 106 95.3C 89.9 78.5 88.9 87.3 80.8 82.9 81.2 85.2 84.3
106.5 1.23 1.15
55.6 2.39 4.29
90.3 5.53 6.13
43.6 2.46 5.64
65.2 2.79 4.28
1.30 2.87
28.5 1.10 3.87
45.4
CPR1 6.140.6510.6
13.9 0.91 6.55
8.9 0.56 6.30
CPR2
CPR3
CPR4
CPR5
CPR10
CPR6
CPR7
CPR8
CPR9
MIX Sample546-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.)
Average Std. Dev. 0 90 180 270 0 90 180 270
A 33.5 38.3 43.3 36.8 34.5 35.4 42.9 35.3 37.5B 38 29.2 36.6 40.7 37.5 32.4 34.8 39.1 36C 29 35.7 28 27.3 30.8 36.4 26.2 29.7 30.4A 11.5 13.6 12.8 12.8 13.3 14.9 11.5 12.2 12.8B 12.1 11.6 11 11.1 13.6 11 10.6 11.6 11.6C 13.4 13.6 14.4 13.8 14.6 13.5 16.3 14.7 14.3A 11.3 11.5 11.7 10.6 10.6 11.2 11.7 10.4 11.1B 10.6 10.7 11 11.4 10.6 10.7 10.8 11 10.9C 10.5 11.4 10.4 11 10.5 10.8 11.3 10.1 10.8A 26.7 27.8 22.8 30.5 26.2 27.5 22.9 30.8 26.9B 33.3 31.5 29.6 27.4 33.2 31 30.4 27.9 30.5C 26.8 27.2 29.3 28.5 28.7 26.7 28.4 27.7 27.9A 46.8 46.5 35.7 36.4 45 49.2 35.3 36 41.4B 36.7 32.4 36 37.9 38.1 37.2 35.8 38.5 36.6C 35 35.3 32.5 36.3 39.7 34.9 34.2 35.1 35.4A 38.1 43.1 45.8 41.3 42.7 41 44.5 45.3 42.7B 35 37.6 38.1 36.1 36.3 39.1 40.2 36.3 37.3C 41.7 32.3 32.9 38.9 39.3 40.2 44.1 41.2 38.8A 127 126 128 121 139 139 126 113 127B 109 114 114 116 109 113 110 118 113C 110 119 125 114 119 114 121 117 117A 44.8 46.7 48.7 51.8 44.6 45.2 50.9 51.4 48B 53.5 55.1 53.4 42.3 56.9 53.7 52.4 44.4 51.5C 50.1 47.2 48.9 53.2 50.3 47.1 52.5 52.8 50.3A 103 85.3 93.4 87.1 102 88.4 89.4 89.3 92.3B 87 86.6 86.5 93.2 86.7 83.9 82.4 90.8 87.1C 77.3 87.8 74.8 88.2 77.2 78.2 77.2 83.5 80.5
86.6 5.88 6.79
119.2 7.43 6.23
49.9 1.75 3.51
37.8 3.17 8.39
39.6 2.78 7.02
0.19 1.78
28.5 1.88 6.60
3.76 10.84
12.9 1.36 10.53
CPR11
CPR12
CPR13
34.6
10.9
CPR21
CPR15
CPR16
CPR17
CPR18
CPR20
MIX Sample546-Day Surface Resistivity (Moist Cured) (kΩ.cm)
COV (%) Reading Locations (Deg.)
Average Std. Dev.
193
APPENDIX F REGRESSION FIT OF CONDUCTIVITY AND LONG-TERM DIFFUSION TESTS
The results of the short-term test RCP and SR were compared to the Bulk Diffusion test
results. Bulk Diffusion test (independent variable) results after a 1 and 3 years of chloride
exposure period were used as a benchmark to evaluate the conductivity tests (dependent
variable) at different concrete ages. It was found that a modified linear regression (Equation F-2)
expressed as a power function provided the best representation of the trends. Other researchers
(Hooton, Thomas and Stanish 2001) have also found this to be true in their work. The scatter
plots of the data (APPENDIX G) showed that the relationship of the test results followed an
increasing rate and variability around the trend as the dependent variable increases. This
behavior can be simulated by the use of a power function. Therefore, the dependent (y-axis) and
independent (x-axis) variable of the general linear regression equation (Equation F-1) can be
modified as followed:
bmxy += (F-1) bmxy += )log()log( bxy m += )log()log(
bmxy 10= maxy = (F-2)
where: y is the dependent variable (electrical tests); x is the independent variable (diffusion tests); m is the slope of the linear regression analysis; b is the intersect to the y-axis of the linear regression analysis; a is 10b.
Figure F-1 and Figure F-2 show the effectiveness of the modified linear regression model
assumption for some of the tests. The modified axis data tend to follow the linear trend.
Moreover, the pattern of residuals (yi-yi_pred; where: yi are the experimental dependent variables
and yi_pred are the dependent variables from the regression analysis) showed homogeneous error
variances across the independent variable axis (constant variance).
194
RCP (91 Days) vs. 364-Day BD
y = 0.936x + 2.733R2 = 0.802
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.5 1 1.5Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))
Log
(RC
P (C
oul.)
) .RCP (91 Days) vs. 364-Day BD
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
0 0.5 1 1.5
Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))
Res
idua
l (y i
-yi_
pred
)
SR(Moist) (91 Days) vs. 364-Day BD
y = 0.848x - 1.787R2 = 0.787
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
00 0.5 1 1.5
Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))
Log
(SR
(1/(k
Ohm
-cm
)) )
SR(Moist) (91 Days) vs. 364-Day BD
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
0 0.5 1 1.5
Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))
Res
idua
l (yi -
yi_p
red)
SR(Lime) (91 Days) vs. 364-Day BD
y = 0.803x - 1.725R2 = 0.840
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
00 0.5 1 1.5
Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))
Log
(SR
(1/(k
Ohm
-cm
)) )
SR(Lime) (91 Days) vs. 364-Day BD
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
0 0.5 1 1.5
Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))
Res
idua
l (yi -
yi_p
red)
Figure F-1. Electrical Test Modified Linear Regression Analysis to 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Data (× Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation calculations).
195
RCP (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD
y = 0.687x + 2.900R2 = 0.755
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.5 1 1.5Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))
Log
(RC
P (C
oul.)
) .RCP (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
0 0.5 1 1.5
Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))
Res
idua
l (y i
-yi_
pred
)
SR(Moist) (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD
y = 0.615x - 1.632R2 = 0.723
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
00 0.5 1 1.5
Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))
Log
(SR
(1/(k
Ohm
-cm
)) )
SR(Moist) (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
0 0.5 1 1.5
Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))
Res
idua
l (yi -
yi_p
red)
SR(Lime) (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD
y = 0.560x - 1.566R2 = 0.715
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
00 0.5 1 1.5
Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))
Log
(SR
(1/(k
Ohm
-cm
)) )
SR(Lime) (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD
-0.8
-0.4
0
0.4
0.8
0 0.5 1 1.5
Log(BD(x10-12) (m2/s))
Res
idua
l (yi -
yi_p
red)
Figure F-2. Electrical Test Modified Linear Regression Analysis to 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Data (× Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation calculations).
196
APPENDIX G COMPARISON OF CONDUCTIVITY AND LONG-TERM LABORATORY DIFFUSION
TESTS
RCP (14 Days) vs. 364-Day BD
y = 1550.771x0.788
R2 = 0.5920
5000
10000
15000
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
RCP (28 Days) vs. 364-Day BD
y = 1041.691x0.862
R2 = 0.6690
5000
10000
15000
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
RCP (56 Days) vs. 364-Day BD
y = 619.604x0.985
R2 = 0.810
0
5000
10000
15000
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
RCP (91 Days) vs. 364-Day BD
y = 540.534x0.936
R2 = 0.802
0
5000
10000
15000
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
RCP (182 Days) vs. 364-Day BD
y = 382.517x1.012
R2 = 0.787
0
5000
10000
15000
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
RCP (364 Days) vs. 364-Day BD
y = 259.604x1.081
R2 = 0.770
0
5000
10000
15000
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
Figure G-1. RCP Coulombs vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients (× Concrete mixture
containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation calculations).
197
RCP (14 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD
y = 2415.106x0.482
R2 = 0.3880
5000
10000
15000
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .RCP (28 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD
y = 1647.192x0.549
R2 = 0.4740
5000
10000
15000
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
RCP (56 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD
y = 966.545x0.690
R2 = 0.698
0
5000
10000
15000
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
RCP (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD
y = 794.546x0.687
R2 = 0.755
0
5000
10000
15000
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
RCP (182 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD
y = 565.798x0.762
R2 = 0.782
0
5000
10000
15000
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
RCP (364 Days) vs. 1092-Day BD
y = 382.249x0.839
R2 = 0.813
0
5000
10000
15000
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (x10-12) (m2/s)
RC
P (C
oulo
mbs
) .
Figure G-2. RCP Coulombs vs. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients (× Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation calculations).
198
SR (Lime) (14 Days) vs. 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.063x0.513
R2 = 0.4750
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Lime) (28 Days) vs. 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.037x0.658
R2 = 0.7700
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Lime) (56 Days) vs. 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.024x0.785
R2 = 0.799
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Lime) (91 Days) vs. 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.019x0.803
R2 = 0.840
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Lime) (182 Days) vs. 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.014x0.792
R2 = 0.808
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Lime) (364 Days) vs. 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.011x0.804
R2 = 0.702
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
Figure G-3. SR (Lime Cured) vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients (× Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation calculations).
199
SR (Lime) (455 Days) vs. 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.011x0.789
R2 = 0.695
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Lime) (546 Days) vs. 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.010x0.823
R2 = 0.682
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
Figure G-3. Continued.
200
SR (Lime) (14 Days) vs. 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.086x0.301
R2 = 0.2860
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Lime) (28 Days) vs. 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.054x0.397
R2 = 0.4920
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Lime) (56 Days) vs. 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.035x0.515
R2 = 0.602
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Lime) (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.027x0.560
R2 = 0.715
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Lime) (182 Days) vs. 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.019x0.586
R2 = 0.773
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Lime) (364 Days) vs. 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.014x0.638
R2 = 0.774
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
Figure G-4. SR (Lime Cured) vs. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients (× Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation calculations).
201
SR (Lime) (455 Days) vs. 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.014x0.626
R2 = 0.765
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Lime) (546 Days) vs. 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.013x0.644
R2 = 0.731
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
Figure G-4. Continued.
202
SR (Moist) (14 Days) vs. 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.032x0.738
R2 = 0.7570
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Moist) (28 Days) vs. 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.028x0.763
R2 = 0.7470
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Moist) (56 Days) vs. 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.021x0.807
R2 = 0.745
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Moist) (91 Days) vs. 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.016x0.848
R2 = 0.787
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Moist) (182 Days) vs. 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.012x0.863
R2 = 0.770
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Moist) (364 Days) vs. 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.009x0.945
R2 = 0.744
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
Figure G-5. SR (Moist Cured) vs. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients (× Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation calculations).
203
SR (Moist) (455 Days) vs. 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.009x0.857
R2 = 0.698
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Moist) (546 Days) vs. 364-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.008x0.907
R2 = 0.685
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 5 10 15 20Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
Figure G-5. Continued.
204
SR (Moist) (14 Days) vs. 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.047x0.474
R2 = 0.4950
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Moist) (28 Days) vs. 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.042x0.487
R2 = 0.533
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Moist) (56 Days) vs. 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.031x0.548
R2 = 0.602
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Moist) (91 Days) vs. 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.023x0.615
R2 = 0.723
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Moist) (182 Days) vs. 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.017x0.659
R2 = 0.788
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Moist) (364 Days) vs. 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.013x0.723
R2 = 0.761
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
Figure G-6. SR (Moist Cured) vs. 3-Year Bulk Diffusion Coefficients (× Concrete mixture containing Calcium Nitrite (CPR12). It was not include in the general correlation calculations).
205
SR (Moist) (455 Days) vs. 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.012x0.683
R2 = 0.777
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
SR (Moist) (546 Days) vs. 1092-Day Bulk Diffusion
y = 0.011x0.717
R2 = 0.750
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0 10 20 30Bulk Diffusion (m2/s)
SR C
ondu
ctiv
ity(1
/(kO
hm-c
m))
Figure G-6. Continued.
206
APPENDIX H ANALYSIS OF DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHER PROJECTS
Table H-1. HRP Project (Paredes 2007) Concrete Mixture Designs. Materials and Specifications
Mixture Name
FDOT Class W/C
Cementicious (pcy)
Pozzolan (%Cement.)
Pozzolan (%Cement.)
Coarse Aggregate
HRP3 V 0.35 752 Fly-Ash (20%)
Silica Fume Slurry (8%)
89 Limestone
HRP4 V 0.35 752 Fly-Ash (20%)
Silica Fume Densified
(8%)
89 Limestone
Table H-2. Initial Chloride Background Levels from HRP Project (Paredes 2007).
TEST Initial Chloride Background Levels
A B C AVG
HRP3 0.426 0.426 0.435 0.429HRP4 0.310 0.368 0.344 0.341
NaCl (lb/yd3)MIX
Table H-3. 1-Year Bulk Diffusion Chloride Profile Testing from HRP Project (Paredes 2007).
MIX HRP3TEST Bulk DiffusionDepth
(in) A B C AVG0.13 36.518 37.006 - 36.7620.38 22.111 21.579 - 21.8450.63 3.639 5.450 - 4.5450.88 1.665 1.858 - 1.7621.13 0.353 0.346 - 0.3501.38 0.310 0.325 - 0.3181.63 0.326 0.308 - 0.3171.88 0.305 0.329 - 0.317
NaCl (lb/yd3)
MIX HRP4TEST Bulk DiffusionDepth
(in) A B C AVG
0.13 39.780 37.705 - 38.7430.38 24.557 17.593 - 21.0750.63 8.962 4.097 - 6.5300.88 1.052 1.396 - 1.2241.13 0.375 0.404 - 0.3901.38 0.370 0.411 - 0.3911.63 0.368 0.400 - 0.3841.88 0.382 0.397 - 0.390
NaCl (lb/yd3)
207
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
20
40
60HRP3-Sample A(20% Fly-Ash, 8% SF Slurry)
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.691E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.429Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 49.517 Sum(Error)^2 26.813
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
20
40
60HRP3-Sample B(20% Fly-Ash, 8% SF Slurry)
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.782E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.429Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 49.372 Sum(Error)^2 12.318
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
20
40
60HRP4-Sample A(20% Fly-Ash, 8% SF Densified)
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.071E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.429Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 52.171 Sum(Error)^2 15.161
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
20
40
60HRP4-Sample B(20% Fly-Ash, 8% SF Densified)
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.355E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.429Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 51.815 Sum(Error)^2 2.640
Figure H-1. Diffusion Coefficient Results from HRP Project (Paredes 2007).
208
Table H-4. St. George Island Bridge Pile Testing Project Chloride Profile Testing of Cored Samples (Cannon et al. 2006).
Pile 44-2Loaction SUBMERGED ZONE (6-ft below MHW)
Depth(in) A B C AVG
0.25 30.239 30.746 30.042 30.3420.75 24.310 24.339 24.339 24.3291.50 20.436 20.041 20.261 20.2462.50 19.451 19.161 19.585 19.3993.50 14.732 14.610 14.703 14.6824.50 13.604 13.630 13.777 13.6705.50 14.549 14.298 14.404 14.417
NaCl (lb/yd3)
Pile 44-2Loaction TIDAL ZONE (1-ft below MHW)
Depth(in) A B C AVG
0.25 18.569 18.985 18.884 18.8130.75 16.492 16.927 17.017 16.8121.50 17.062 16.861 17.247 17.0572.50 14.018 14.111 14.355 14.1613.50 12.435 12.630 12.794 12.6204.50 11.067 10.961 10.957 10.9955.50 10.260 10.596 9.963 10.273
NaCl (lb/yd3)
Pile 44-2Loaction SPLASH ZONE (3-ft above MHW)
Depth(in) A B C AVG
0.25 20.062 19.933 19.801 19.9320.75 16.966 16.973 17.258 17.0661.50 13.277 13.447 13.320 13.3482.50 8.979 8.879 9.026 8.9613.50 5.999 5.866 5.866 5.9104.50 3.739 3.550 3.374 3.5545.50 1.652 1.648 1.655 1.652
NaCl (lb/yd3)
Pile 44-2Loaction DRY ZONE (7-ft above MHW)
Depth(in) A B C AVG
0.25 5.122 5.115 5.198 5.1450.75 7.310 7.203 6.771 7.0951.50 5.223 5.175 5.191 5.1962.50 3.536 3.462 3.454 3.4843.50 1.672 1.745 1.666 1.6944.50 1.013 0.958 1.021 0.9975.50 0.371 0.384 0.355 0.370
NaCl (lb/yd3)
209
0 5 10 15 200
10
20
30PILE 44-2 (6ft below MHW)(SUBMERGED)
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.148E-11 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.400Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 27.738 Sum(Error)^2 32.192
0 5 10 15 200
10
20
30PILE 44-2 (1ft below MHW))(TIDAL)
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.827E-11 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.400Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 18.879 Sum(Error)^2 1.849
0 5 10 15 200
10
20
30PILE 44-2 (3ft above MHW)(SPLASH)
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 2.495E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.400Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 21.163 Sum(Error)^2 0.184
0 5 10 15 200
10
20
30PILE 44-2 (7ft above MHW)(DRY)
Depth (in)
Chl
orid
e C
onte
nt (l
b/yd
^3)
Diffusion(m^2/sec) 1.646E-12 Background(lb/yd̂ 3) 0.400Surface(lb/yd̂ 3) 9.219 Sum(Error)^2 0.179
Figure H-2. St. George Island Bridge Pile Testing Project Diffusion Coefficients (Cannon et al. 2006) (Initial chloride background levels information was not available in this project. It was assumed a minimum value of 0.40 lb/yd3 for all the samples).
210
LIST OF REFERENCES
AASHTO T 23 (1993). “Standard Method of Test for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens.” American Association of States Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO T 259-80 (1993). “Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration.” American Association of States Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO T 260 (1997). “Standard Method of Test for Sampling and Testing for Chloride Ion in Concrete and Concrete Raw Materials.” American Association of States Highway and Transportation Officials.
AASHTO T 277-86 (1990). “Rapid Determination of the Chloride Permeability of Concrete.” American Association of States Highway and Transportation Officials.
ASTM C 39 (1999). “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens.” American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM C 138 (2001). “Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete.” American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM C 143 (2000). “Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete.” American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM C 173 (2001). “Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Volumetric Method.” American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM C 1064 (1999). “Standard Test Method for Temperature of Freshly Mixed Portland Cement Concrete.” American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM C1152/C1152M (1990). “Standard Test Method for Acid-Soluble Chloride in Mortar and Concrete.” American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM C 1202 (1997). “Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration.” American Society for Testing and Materials.
Andrade, C. (1993). “Calculation of chloride diffusion coefficients in concrete from ionic migration measurements.” Cement and Concrete Research, 23(3), 724-742.
Ann, K.Y., Jung, H.S., Kim, H.S. and Moon,H.Y. (2005). “Effect of Calcium Nitrite-Based Corrosion Inhibitor in Preventing Corrosion of Embedded Steel in Concrete.” Cement and Concrete Research, 36(3), 530-535.
211
Berke, N.S. (1987). “Effect of Calcium Nitrite and Mix Design on the Corrosion Resistance of Steel in Concrete (Part 2 Long-Term Results)”. Proceedings of the Corrosion-87 Symposium on Corrosion of Metals in Concrete. Houston: National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 134.
Broomfield, J. and Millard, S. (2002). “Measuring concrete resistivity to assess corrosion rates.” A report from The Concrete Society/Institute of Corrosion liaison committee, Current Practice Sheet (128), 37-39.
Boddy, A., Bentz, E., Thomas, M.D.A. and Hooton, R.D. (1999). “An overview and sensitivity study of a multimechanistic chloride transport model.” Cement and Concrete Research, 29(6), 827-837.
Boddy, A., Hooton, R.D. and Gruber K.A. (2001). “Long-term Testing of the Chloride-Penetration Resistance of Concrete Containing High-Reactivity Metakaolin.” Cement and Concrete Research, 31(5), 759-765.
Cannon, E., Lewinger, C., Abi, C. and Hamilton, H. R. (2006). “St. George Island Bridge Pile Testing”. Final Report No. BD545, Florida Department of Transportation.
Chini, A.R, Muszynski, L.C. and Hicks, J. (2003). “Determination of Acceptance Permeability Characteristics for Performance-Related Specifications for Portland Cement Concrete.” Final Report No. BC 354-41, Florida Department of Transportation.
Dhir, R.K., and Byars, E.A. (1993). “PFA concrete: Chloride diffusion rates.” Magazine of Concrete Research, 45(162), 1-9.
Feldman, R.F., Chan, G.W., Brousseau, R.J. and Tumidajski, P.J. (1994). “Investigation of the Rapid Chloride Permeability Test.” ACI Materials Journal, 91(3), 246-255.
FDOT 346 (2004). “Florida Department of Transportation Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction.” Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 346-3.1(d).
FDOT SDG (2007). “Structures Design Guidelines.” Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
FM 5-516 (2005). “Florida Method of Test For Determining Low-Levels of Chloride in Concrete and Raw Materials.” Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
FM 5-578 (2004). “Florida Method of Test for Concrete Resistivity as an Electrical Indicator of its Permeability.” Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
212
Glass, G.K., and Buenfeld, N.R. (1995). “Chloride threshold levels for corrosion induced deterioration of steel in concrete.” International RILEM Workshop.
Gowers, K.R. and Millard, S.G. (1999). “Measurement of Concrete Resistivity for Assessment of Corrosion Severity of Steel Using Wenner Technique.” ACI Materials Journal, 96(5), 536-541.
Hooton, R.D. (1997). “Discussion of the rapid chloride permeability test and its correlation to the 90-day chloride ponding test.” PCI Journal, 42(3), 65-66.
Hooton, R.D.,Thomas, M.D.A. and Stanish, K. (2001). “Prediction of Chloride Penetration in Concrete.” Final Report No. FHWA/RD-00/142, Federal Highway Administration.
Hughes, B.P., Soleit, A.K.O. and Brierly, R.W. (1985). “New Technique for Determining the Electrical Resistivity of Concrete.” Magazine of Concrete Research, 37(133), 243-248.
Kirkpatricka, T., Weyers, R.E., Anderson-Cook, C.M. and Sprinkel, M.M. (2002). “Probabilistic Model for the Chloride-Induced Corrosion Service Life of Bridge Decks.” Cement and Concrete Research, 32(12), 1943-1960.
Kranc, S.C. and Sagüés, A.A. (2003). “Advanced Analysis of Chloride Ion Penetration Profiles in Marine Substructure.” Final Report No. BB 880, Florida Department of Transportation.
Kondratova, I.L., Montes, P. and Bremner, T.W. (2003). “Natural Marine Exposure Results for Reinforced Concrete Slabs with Corrosion Inhibitors.” Cement and Concrete Composites, 25(4), 483-490.
Li, Z., Peng, J., and Ma, B. (1999). “Investigation of chloride diffusion for high-performance concrete containing fly ash, microsilica, and chemical admixtures.” ACI Materials Journal, 96(3), 391-396.
Luping, T. and Nilson, L.O. (1992). “Chloride Diffusivity in High-Strength Concrete at Different Ages.” Nordic Concrete Research, Publication No. 11.
Ma, B., Li, Z. and Peng, J. (1998). “Effect of Calcium Nitrite on High Performance Concrete Containing Fly Ash”. Supplementary Proceedings of the Six CANMET/ACI International Conference on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete. Bangkok, 113–24.
Mangat, P.S. and Molloy, B.T. (1994). “Prediction of Long Term Chloride Concentration in Concrete.” Materials and Structures, 27, 338-346.
213
McGrath, P.F. and Hooton, R.D. (1999). “Re-evaluation of the AASHTO T259 90-day salt ponding test.” Cement and Concrete Research, 29(8), 1239-1248.
Mindess, S., Young, J.F and Darwin, D. (2002). “Concrete.” Second Edition, Prentice-Hall.
Monfore, G.E. (1968). “The Electrical Resistivity of Concrete.” Journal of the PCA Research and Development Laboratories, 10(2), 35-48.
Morris, W., Moreno, E.I. and Sagües, A.A. (1996). “Practical evaluation of resistivity of concrete in test cylinders using a Wenner array probe.” Cement and Concrete Research, 26(12), 1779-1787.
Nokken, M., Boddy, A., Hooton, R.D. and Thomas, M.D.A. (2006). “Time Dependent Diffusion in Concrete—Three Laboratory Studies.” Cement and Concrete Research, 36(1), 200-207.
NT BUILD 443 (1995). “Concrete, hardened: Accelerated chloride penetration.” Nordtest method.
Ozyildirim, C., and Halstead, W.J. (1988). “Use of Admixtures to Attain Low Permeability Concretes” Final Report No. FHWA/VA-88-R11.
Page, C.L., Short, N.R., and El Tarras, A. (1981). “Diffusion of chloride ions in hardened cement pastes.” Cement and Concrete Research, 11(3), 395-406.
Paredes, M. (2007). “High Reactive Pozzolans Project (HRP)”. Project in Progress. Florida Department of Transportation.
Pfeifer, D.W., McDonald, D.B. and Krauss, P.D. (1994). “The rapid chloride permeability test and its correlation to the 90-day chloride ponding test.” PCI Journal, 41(4), 82–95.
Sagüés, A.A. (1994). “Corrosion of Epoxy Coated Rebar in Florida Bridges.” Final Report No. 99700-7556-010, WPI 0510603, Florida Department of Transportation.
Sagüés, A.A., Kranc, S.C., Presuel-Moreno, F., Rey, D., Torres-Acosta, A. and Yao, L. (2001). “Corrosion Forecasting for 75-Year Durability Design of Reinforced Concrete.” Final Report No. BA 502, Florida Department of Transportation.
Scanlon, J.M. and Sherman, M.R. (1996). “Fly ash concrete: An evaluation of chloride penetration testing methods.” Concrete International, 18(6), 57-62.
214
Shi, C., Stegemenn, J.A. and Caldwell, R. (1998). “Effect of Supplementary Cementing Materials on the Specific Conductivity of Pore Solution and Its Implications on the Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (AASHTO T277 and ASTM C1202) Results.” ACI Materials Journal, 95(4), 389-394.
Shi, C. (2003). “Another look at the Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (ASTM C1202 or AASHTO T277)”.
Snyder, K.A., Ferraris, C., Martys, N.S. and Garboczi, E.J. (2000). “Using Impedance Spectroscopy to Assess the Viability of the Rapid Chloride Test for determining Concrete Conductivity.” Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standars and Technology, 105(4), 497-509.
Sohanghpurwala, A.A (2006). “Manual on Service Life of Corrosion Damaged Reinforced Concrete Bridge Superstructure Elements”. CONCORR, Inc.
Stanish, K. and Thomas, M. (2003). “The use of bulk diffusion tests to establish time-dependent concrete chloride diffusion coefficients.” Cement and Concrete Research, 33(1), 55-62.
Streicher, P.E and Alexander, M.G. (1995). “A Chloride Conduction Test for Concrete.” Cement and Concrete Research, 25(6), 1284-1294.
Tang, L. and Andersen, A. (2000). “Chloride ingress data from five years field exposure in a Swedish marine environment”. Proceedings of the 2nd International RILEM Workshop on Testing and Modelling the Chloride Ingress into Concrete, Paris, 11-12, pp. 105-119.
Tang, L. (2003). “Chloride Ingress in Concrete Exposed to Marine Environment–Field data up to 10 years exposure”. SP Swedish National Testing and Research Institute Building Technology and Mechanics. SP REPORT 2003:16.
Thomas, M.D.A., Pantazopoulou, S.J. and Martín-Pérez, B. (1995). “Service Life Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Structures Exposed to Chlorides: A Literature Review.” Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 45.
Thomas, M.D.A. and Bamforth, P.B. (1999). “Modelling Chloride Diffusion in Concrete Effect of Fly Ash and Slag.” Cement and Concrete Research, 29(4), 487-495.
Thomas, M.D.A., Shehata, M.H., Shashiprakash, S.G., Hopkins, D.S. and Cail, K. (1999). “Use of Ternary Cementitious Systems Containing Silica Fume and Fly Ash in Concrete.” Cement and Concrete Research, 29(8), 1207-1214.
Tuutti, K. (1982). “Corrosion of steel in concrete.” Swedish Cement and Concrete Research Institute, 469.
215
Vivas, E., Boyd, A. and Hamilton, H. R. (2007). “Permeability of Concrete – Comparison of Conductivity and Diffusion Methods.” Final Report No. BD 536, Florida Department of Transportation.
Whiting, D. (1981). “Rapid determination of the chloride ion permeability of concrete.” Federal Highway Administration, Final Report No. FHWA/RD-81/119.
Whiting, D. (1988). “Permeability of Selected Concretes.” Permeability of Concrete, SP-108, American Concrete Institute. 195-222.
Whiting, D., and Dziedzic, W. (1989). “Resistance to Chloride Infiltration of Superplasticized Concrete as Compared With Currently Used Concrete Overlay Systems.” Final Report No. FHWA/OH-89/009.
Whiting, D. and Mohamad, N. (2003). “Electrical Resistivity of Concrete-A Literature Review.” Portland Cement Association, R&D Serial No. 2457.
Wee, T.H., Suryavanshi, A.K. and Tin, S.S. (2000). “Evaluation of Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCPT) Results for Concrete Containing Mineral Admixtures.” ACI Materials Journal, 97(2), 221-232.
Yang, C.C., Cho, S.W. and Huang, R. (2002). “The relationship between charge passed and the chloride-ion concentration in concrete using steady-state chloride migration test.” Cement and Concrete Research, 32(2), 217-22.
216
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Enrique A. Vivas was born in 1976 in Valencia, Venezuela, to Yolanda and Pedro Vivas.
He graduated from La Salle High School in Valencia Venezuela in July of 1993. He received his
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering in the Fall of 1999 from the University of Carabobo,
Venezuela. While attending the University of Carabobo full time, Enrique worked part time for
the Department of Civil Engineering, for three year as an Assistant Engineer at the Physical Plant
Office.
Enrique continued his education by entering graduate school to pursue a Master of
Engineering in the Structural Group of the Civil and Coastal Engineering Department at the
University of Florida in the Spring 2002. He received his Master of Engineering in the Spring of
2004.