Development of Ternary OPC/FA/SF Binder System …...Development of Ternary OPC/FA/SF Binder System for Bridge Decks Concrete Prof. Jan Olek (Purdue University) Dr. Mateusz Radlinski

Development of Ternary OPC/FA/SF Binder

System for Bridge Decks Concrete

Prof. Jan Olek (Purdue University)

Dr. Mateusz Radlinski (Exponent)

ACI Spring 2015 Convention, Kansas City, MO

April 15, 2015

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/clubhouse?collegeId=2509


2

Background

• Nearly half of 500,000 bridges

in the U.S. are over 40 years

old and thus require serious

maintenance (Huang et al. 2004)

• Estimated Cost: $70-90 billion(Liu and Weyers 1998; Kirkpatrick 2002)

• Major Durability Problems

- Reinforcement corrosion

- Freeze-thaw damage

- Shrinkage cracking

- Salt scalingFrosch and Aldridge 2005



3

• SCMs (fly ash, silica fume, GGBFS)

introduced in part to address

durability problems

• When used individually in binary

binder systems, SCMs have some

disadvantages…

• Ternary OPC/FA/SF binder systems

exhibit properties superior to

binary systems

• Performance commonly attributed

to synergistic effects between FA

and SF

• FA compensates for deficiencies

of SF, and vice versa...

Neuwald, 2004

Background

Neuwald, 2004



4

Year

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1980 1982-

1985

1985-

1988

1986-

1989

1989-

1992

1992-

1995

1995-

1998

1998-

2001

2001-

2004

2004-

2007

Year of Publication

Num

ber

of

Papers

All

Bridge Decks

Literature Research

• Identified total of 50 technical papers reporting use of OPC/FA/SF

mixtures

• In 10 papers OPC/FA/SF mixtures specifically considered for bridge

decks



5

Scope of Evaluation

1. Synergistic Effects

2. Transport-Related Properties

3. Compressive Strength Development

4. Salt Scaling Resistance

5. Shrinkage and Resistance to Shrinkage Cracking

6. Sensitivity to Curing Conditions

7. Freeze-Thaw Resistance

8. Air-Void System Requirements

9. Optimum Fly Ash and Silica Fume Contents

10. Field Performance



6

Synergistic Effects

• Definition of Synergy

“Interaction of two or more agents or forces so that theircombined effect is greater than the sum of their individualeffects”

• Objective

Verify whether synergy exists, and if so, whether due to:

1) Physical source (higher solid concentration/packing density)

2) Chemical source (higher amount of hydration products)



7

Synergistic Effects

• 4 Mixtures Tested

- OPC

- 20FA

- 5SF

- 20FA/5SF

• Theoretical Values

of Property for

Ternary Mixture

OPC5SF20FA

5SF20FAOPC

/5SFTheor.20FA

PPP

ΔPΔPP

P

2D Graph 1

Age (days)

0.1 1 10 100 1000

Co

mp

ressiv

e S

tre

ngth

(M

Pa

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

OPC

20FA

5SF

20FA/5SF

Theor. 20FA/5SF

2D Graph 2

Age (days)

7 28 180

RC

P (

co

ulo

mb

s)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000OPC

20FA

5SF

20FA/5SF

Theor. 20FA/5SF

2D Graph 2

Age (days)

7 28 180

Initia

l A

bsorp

tivity (

mm

/s^0

.5)

0

20

40

60

80

100OPC

20FA

5SF

20FA/5SF

Theor. 20FA/5SF

2D Graph 2

Age (days)

7 28 180

Secondary

Absorp

tivity (

mm

/s^0

.5)

0

2

4

6

8

10OPC

20FA

5SF

20FA/5SF

Theor. 20FA/5SF



CAH

Stamp

8

Wong and Kwan, 2008

w/cmmass = 0.23

• Solid Concentration (at constant w/cmmass = 0.41):

• Volumetric Difference (“Hidden Effect”):

• Solid Concentration (at const. w/cmvol. = 1.29):

Synergistic Effects

– Physical Source

OPC 20FA 5SF 20FA/5SF

Vsolids per 100 cm3

of paste (cm3)

31.75 33.21 32.43 33.89

w/cm by mass 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41

w/cm by volume 1.29 1.23 1.26 1.21

V

VcOPC 20FA 5SF 20FA/5SF

0.468 0.485 0.477 0.490

Voids ratio e = 1 -

OPC 20FA 5SF 20FA/5SF

0.468 0.473 0.473 0.473

VCement < VSCM

SGCement > SGSCM



CAH

Stamp

9

Synergistic Effects

– Chemical Source

• Isothermal Calorimetry

• Thermogravimetric Analysis

Comparison of Calorimeters (20% FA mix)

Time (h)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Heat

Evolu

tion

Rate

(W

/kg)

0

1

2

3

4

OPC

20FA

5SF

20FA/5SF

20FA

20FA/5SF

OPC

5SF


Time (h)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Heat

Evolu

tion

Rate

(W

/kg)

0

1

2

3

4

OPC

20FA

5SF

20FA/5SF

20FA

20FA/5SF

OPC

5SF

2D Graph 1

Time (days)

0.1 1 10 100 1000

WH

(%

by c

em

en

t w

t.)

5

10

15

20

25

30

OPC

20FA

5SF

20FA/5SF

Theor. 20FA/5SF

CHnH WWW


Time (h)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Cum

ula

tive H

eat

(W/k

g)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

OPC

20FA

5SF

20FA/5SF

20FA

20FA/5SF

OPC

5SF


Time (h)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Cum

ula

tive H

eat

(W/k

g)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

OPC

20FA

5SF

20FA/5SF

20FA

20FA/5SF

OPC

5SF

DWH = 1%

DC1.7SH4 = 0.13 g

(0.06 cm3) per 1 g

cement



CAH

Stamp

Mixture Composition

• 4 Ternary Mixtures with FA (20% or 30%) and SF (5% or 7%)

• Mix Design Parameters:

• Cement Content = 231 kg/m3

• W/CM = 0.41

• Target Air Content: 6.5% (±0.5%)

• Target Slump: 150 mm (± 50 mm)

Mix designation 20FA/5SF 20FA/7SF 30FA/5SF 30FA/7SF SPEC

Water-cementitious materials ratio 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.38-0.42

Total cementitious materials (kg/m3) 308 317 356 367 -

Water (kg/m 3) 127 130 146 151 -

Paste (%) 23 24 27 28 Max. 28

Cement (kg/m3) 231 231 231 231 Min. 231

Fly ash (kg/m3) 62 63 107 110 -

Fly ash (% by mass of binder) 20 20 30 30 20-30

Silica fume (kg/m3) 15 22 18 26 -

Silica fume (% by mass of binder) 5 5 7 7 5-7

Fine aggregate (SSD) (kg/m3) 746 738 706 696 -

Coarse aggregate (SSD) (kg/m3) 1116 1104 1055 1040 -



11

Transport-Related

Properties - Objectives

• Evaluate Transport Properties of Ternary Concretes Using

- Non-Steady Diffusion Test: Bulk Diffusion (ASTM C1556)

- Migration-Based Tests: RCP (ASTM C1202) and RMP (AASHTO TP64)

- Absorption-Type Tests: Sorptivity (ASTM C1585) and Absorptivity

Polyethylene sheet Aluminum

tape

Specimen support

Pan

t =

52 m

m

2

mm

Water

Polyethylene sheet

Specimen support

15

mm

Water Silicone caulk

D = 102 mm D = 102 mm



12

RMP vs. time

0.0000

0.0020

0.0040

0.0060

0.0080

0.0100

0.0120

0.0140

0.0160

0.0180

0.0200

0 50 100 150 200

Time (days)R

MP

(m

m/(

Vh

))

20FA/5SF

20FA/7SF

30FA/5SF

30FA/7SF

Da vs. time

0.00E+00

2.00E-13

4.00E-13

6.00E-13

8.00E-13

1.00E-12

1.20E-12

1.40E-12

1.60E-12

1.80E-12

2.00E-12

0 50 100 150 200

Time (days)

Da (

m2/s

)

20FA/5SF

20FA/7SF

30FA/5SF

30FA/7SF0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0 28 56 84 112 140 168 196

Time (days)

Init

ial a

bs

orp

tiv

ity

(m

m/s

1/2

)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Init

ial s

orp

tiv

ity

(m

m/s

1/2

)

20FA/5SF - absorptivity 20FA/7SF - absorptivity

30FA/5SF - absorptivity 30FA/7SF - absorptivity

20FA/5SF - sorptivity 20FA/7SF - sorptivity

30FA/5SF - sorptivity 30FA/7SF - sorptivity

avg. of 3.5

and 6.7

avg. of 1.6

and 5.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0 28 56 84 112 140 168 196

Time (days)

Init

ial ab

so

rpti

vit

y (

mm

/s1

/2)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Init

ial so

rpti

vit

y (

mm

/s1

/2)

20FA/5SF - absorptivity




20FA/5SF - sorptivity




avg. of 3.5

and 6.7

avg. of 1.6 and 5.0

RCP vs. time

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 50 100 150 200

Time (days)

RC

P (

co

ulo

mb

s)

20FA/5SF

20FA/7SF

30FA/5SF

30FA/7SF

Transport-Related

Properties – Test Results

30% < max=40%

(ASTM C 1556)



CAH

Stamp

13

Effects of Initial Curing

4 Initial Curing Regimes

1. Air Drying

2. 7-day Curing Compound Application

3. 3-day Wet Burlap Curing

4. 7-day Wet Burlap Curing



14

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

20

22

24

26

28

30

14

28

42

56

70

RC

P (

coulo

mbs)

FA (%)

Age (days)

9

air drying

3 days burlap

7 days

cur. comp.

7 days

burlap

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

20

22

24

26

28

30

14

28

42

56

70

RC

P (

coulo

mbs)

FA (%)

Age (days)

9

air drying

3 days burlap

7 days

cur. comp.

7 days

burlap

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

20

22

24

26

28

30

14

28

42

56

70In

itia

l absorp

tivty

(m

m/s

^1/2

)

FA (%)

Age (days)

air drying

3 days

burlap

7 days

cur. comp.

7 days

burlap

9 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

20

22

24

26

28

30

14

28

42

56

70In

itia

l absorp

tivty

(m

m/s

^1/2

)

FA (%)

Age (days)

air drying

3 days

burlap

7 days

cur. comp.

7 days

burlap

9

Transport-Related

Properties – Effect of Curing



15

Compressive Strength

Development

30FA/5SF

Age (days)

0 14 28 42 56 70 84 98

Co

mp

ressiv

e s

tre

ngth

(M

Pa

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Moist cured

Air dry

7 days curing comp.

3 days burlap

7 days burlap

30FA/7SF

Age (days)

0 14 28 42 56 70 84 98

Com

pre

ssiv

e s

trength

(M

Pa)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Moist cured

Air dry

7 days curing comp.

3 days burlap

7 days burlap

20FA/5SF

Age (days)

0 14 28 42 56 70 84 98

Co

mp

ressiv

e s

tre

ngth

(M

Pa

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Moist cured

Air dry

7 days curing comp.

3 days burlap

7 days burlap

20FA/7SF

Age (days)

0 14 28 42 56 70 84 98

Co

mp

ressiv

e s

tre

ngth

(M

Pa

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Moist cured

Air dry

7 days curing comp.

3 days burlap

7 days burlap

20FA/5SF 20FA/7SF

30FA/5SF 30FA/7SF



16

Scaling Test Results

– Early Age20FA/5SF - 14 days

# of cycles

0 10 20 30 40 50

Ma

ss lo

ss (

kg/m

^2)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0Air drying

3 days burlap

7 days burlap

7 days curing compound

20FA/7SF - 14 days

# of cycles

0 10 20 30 40 50

Ma

ss lo

ss (

kg/m

^2)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0Air drying

3 days burlap

7 days burlap


30FA/5SF - 14 days

# of cycles

0 10 20 30 40 50

Ma

ss lo

ss (

kg/m

^2)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0Air drying

3 days burlap

7 days burlap


30FA/7SF - 14 days

# of cycles

0 10 20 30 40 50

Ma

ss lo

ss (

kg/m

^2)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0Air drying

3 days burlap

7 days burlap


20FA/5SF 20FA/7SF

30FA/5SF 30FA/7SF

• ASTM C672

Method Used

• Testing Started at

14,17 or 21 days

• Visual Inspection

and Mass Loss

Determined



17

20FA/5SF - 90 days

# of cycles

0 10 20 30 40 50

Mass loss (

kg/m

^2)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0Air drying

3 days burlap

7 days burlap


20FA/7SF - 90 days

# of cycles

0 10 20 30 40 50

Mass loss (

kg/m

^2)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0Air drying

3 days burlap

7 days burlap


30FA/5SF - 90 days

# of cycles

0 10 20 30 40 50

Ma

ss loss (

kg/m

^2)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0Air drying

3 days burlap

7 days burlap


30FA/7SF - 90 days

# of cycles

0 10 20 30 40 50

Mass loss (

kg/m

^2)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0Air drying

3 days burlap

7 days burlap


20FA/5SF 20FA/7SF

30FA/5SF 30FA/7SF

• ASTM C672

Method Used

• Testing Started at

90 days

• Visual Inspection

and Mass Loss

Determined

Scaling Test Results

– Late Age



18

• ASTM C 157

Method Used

• Demolding and

Initial Reading at

Final Set

• Additionally Plain

Cement Mix

(Class C INDOT)

Tested

Unrestrained (Free) Shrinkage

30FA/7SF - var. cur

Age (days)

0 56 112 168 224 280 336 392 448 504

Fre

e S

hrin

ka

ge

Str

ain

(m

icro

str

ain

s)

-800

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200Air drying

3 days burlap

7 days burlap


30FA/5SF - var curing

Age (days)

0 56 112 168 224 280 336 392 448 504

Fre

e S

hrin

ka

ge

Str

ain

(m

icro

str

ain

s)

-800

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200Air drying

3 days burlap


20FA/7SF - var. curing

Age (days)

0 56 112 168 224 280 336 392 448 504

Fre

e S

hrin

ka

ge

Str

ain

(m

icro

str

ain

s)

-800

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200Air drying

3 days burlap

7 days burlap



Age (days)

0 56 112 168 224 280 336 392 448 504

Fre

e S

hrinkage S

train

(m

icro

str

ain

s)

-800

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200Air drying

3 days burlap


20FA/5SF 20FA/7SF

30FA/5SF 30FA/7SF

class C INDOT-var curing

Age (days)

0 56 112 168 224 280 336 392 448 504

Fre

e S

hrinkage S

train

(m

icro

str

ain

s)

-800

-700

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200Air drying

7 days burlap

INDOT Class C



19

• Free shrinkage of standard-

cured specimens normalized by

aggregate content of INDOT

Class C mix

Unrestrained (Free) Shrinkage

• Normalized free shrinkage of

standard-cured specimens

as a function of cement

replacement level



20

Resistance to Shrinkage

Cracking

• AASHTO PP 34

Method Used

• 2 Rings per

Mix/Curing

Condition

• Additionally Plain

Cement Mix

(Class C INDOT)

Tested


Time (days)

0 28 56 84 112 140 168 196

Re

str

ain

ed

sh

rin

ka

ge

str

ain

(m

icro

str

ain

s)

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10Air dry (1)

Air dry (2)

3 days burlap (1)

3 days burlap (2)

7 days burlap (1)

7 days burlap (2)

7 days cur. comp. (1)



Time (days)

0 28 56 84 112 140 168 196

Re

str

ain

ed

sh

rin

ka

ge

str

ain

(m

icro

str

ain

s)

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10Air dry (1)

Air dry (2)

3 days burlap (1)

3 days burlap (2)




Time (days)

0 28 56 84 112 140 168 196

Re

str

ain

ed s

hri

nkage

str

ain

(m

icro

str

ain

s)

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

Air dry (1)

Air dry (2)

3 days burlap (1)

3 days burlap (2)

7 days burlap (1)

7 days burlap (2)




Time (days)

0 28 56 84 112 140 168 196

Re

str

ain

ed

sh

rin

ka

ge

str

ain

(m

icro

str

ain

s)

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

Air dry (1)

Air dry (2)

3 days burlap (1)

3 days burlap (2)



20FA/5SF 20FA/7SF

30FA/5SF 30FA/7SF

Class C INDOT - var. curing

Time (days)

0 28 56 84 112 140 168 196

Restr

ain

ed

shrinkage s

train

(m

icro

str

ain

s)

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10Air dry (1)

Air dry (2)

7 days burlap (1)

7 days burlap (2)

INDOT Class C



21

Age of Concrete

at Cracking

Assessing Probability of

Cracking Based on Free

Shrinkage

Resistance to Shrinkage

Cracking

3 Days Wet

Burlap

7 Days Wet

Burlap

Air Drying

7 Days

Curing

Compound

20FA/5SF 20FA/7SF 30FA/5SF 30FA/7SF INDOT Class C

33\94 20\

∞\∞ 23\40

82\134 ∞ 20\23

25\25 16\35

23\29

∞\∞

∞\∞ ∞\∞ ∞\∞

53\∞ 42\∞ 53\151

Incre

asin

g R

esis

tan

ce

to S

hri

nkag

e C

rac

kin

g

Increasing Resistance

to Shrinkage Cracking

Increasing Paste Content

3 Days Wet

Burlap

7 Days Wet

Burlap

Air Drying

7 Days

Curing

Compound


33\94 20\

∞\∞ 23\40

82\134 ∞ 20\23

25\25 16\35

23\29

∞\∞

∞\∞ ∞\∞ ∞\∞

53\∞ 42\∞ 53\151

Incre

asin

g R

esis

tan

ce

to S

hri

nkag

e C

rac

kin

g

Increasing Resistance

to Shrinkage Cracking

Increasing Paste Content

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

56-day Free Shrinkage (microstrains)

Pro

ba

bili

ty o

f C

rackin

g s

20FA/5SF

20FA/7SF

30FA/5SF

30FA/7SF

INDOT Class C

(620; 1.00)

(510; 0.83)

(310; 0.00)

(430; 0.64)

(340; 0.25)



CAH

Stamp

22

• Relative Curing Efficiency (RCE) was calculated for each concrete property with respect to 7-d burlap method (assumed as a standard):

STR – Compressive Stregth

SCA – Scaling Resistance

RCP – Resistance to Chloride-Ion Penetration

ABS – Absorptivity

SHR – Shrinkage

%100P

PRCE

j

REF

ki

20FA/5SF

20FA/7SF

30FA/5SF

30FA/7SF

ABS

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

RCP SHR

ABS RCP SHR

RCP ABS SCA STR

RCPABS STR SHR

STR SCA121

STRSCA

SHR

SCA

20FA/5SF

20FA/7SF

30FA/5SF

30FA/7SF

Relative Curing Efficiency (%)

STRSCA RCPABS SHR

STRSCA RCPABS SHR

STRSCA RCPABS SHR107

STRSCARCPABS SHR112

Early Age

Late Age

20FA/5SF

20FA/7SF

30FA/5SF

30FA/7SF

ABS

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

RCP SHR

ABS RCP SHR

RCP ABS SCA STR

RCPABS STR SHR

STR SCA121

STRSCA

SHR

SCA

20FA/5SF

20FA/7SF

30FA/5SF

30FA/7SF

Relative Curing Efficiency (%)

STRSCA RCPABS SHR

STRSCA RCPABS SHR

STRSCA RCPABS SHR107

STRSCARCPABS SHR112

Early Age

Late Age

AIR DRYING

Age Early Late

Air Drying ABS, RCPSCA, ABS,

RCP, STR

7-D Cur.

Comp.SHR

ABS, STR,

SHR

3-D Burlap SCA, RCP ABS

Sensitivity to Curing

Conditions

• Properties Most Affected:



23

Freeze-Thaw ResistanceRelative elastic modulus vs. # of F-T cycles - 14 day

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Number of F-T Cycles

Re

lative

Dyn

am

ic E

lastic M

od

ulu

s (

%)

s

20FA/5SF

20FA/7SF

30FA/5SF

30FA/7SF

INDOT class C mix

14 Days

Relative elastic modulus vs. # of F-T cycles - 56 day

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Number of F-T cycles

Re

lative

Dyn

am

ic E

lastic M

od

ulu

s (

%)

s

20FA/5SF

20FA/7SF

30FA/5SF

30FA/7SF

56 Days

Testing Age (days) 14 56

20FA/5SF 56 64

20FA/7SF 67 46

30FA/5SF 51 40

30FA/7SF 67 35

CLASS C INDOT 92 -

• Fresh Concrete Air Content 5.9-7.3%

• ASTM C666 Proc. A Used

• DF after 300 F-T Cycles:



24

Two Hypotheses for Low F-T Resistance of OPC/FA/SF Concrete:

1. Use of frost-susceptible aggregate

• Surface pop-outs

• Cracking

• But the same aggregate used in plain cement mix!

2. Need for more rigorous air-void system parameters for F-T resistant OPC/FA/SF concrete

• Refined pore structure due to fine SF particles

• More air bubbles needed to intercept the pores (Pigeon et al. 1986)

Freeze-Thaw Resistance



25

Air-Void System Requirements

– Testing Procedure

1. Manual Air-Void System AnalysisUsing Modified Point-Count Method (ASTM C 457)

2. Automatic Air-Void System AnalysisUsing Flatbed Scanner and Image Analysis Techniques

3. Freeze-Thaw Resistance(ASTM C 666 Procedure A); Durability Factor after 300 F-T Cycles Calculated

Scanned

Histogram

Stretching

Thresh-

oldingPolished



CAH

Stamp

260

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

Spacing Factor (mm)

Du

rab

ility

Fa

cto

r (%

)

Slump < 190 mm

Slump ≥ 190 mm0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0

Specific Surface (mm2/mm

3)

Du

rab

ility

Fa

cto

r (%

)

Slump < 190 mm

Slump ≥ 190 mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

Void Frequency (voids/mm)

Du

rab

ility

Fa

cto

r (%

)

Slump < 190 mm

Slump ≥ 190 mm

d

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Air Content (%)

Du

rab

ility

Fa

cto

r (%

)

Slump < 190 mm

Slump ≥ 190 mm

8.0 0.28

19.4 0.20

4.5 0.21

14.4 0.30

ZONE III

ZONE I

ZONE II ZONE III

ZONE I

ZO

NE

II

ZONE III

ZONE II

ZONE IIZONE IIIZONE II

ZONE I


– Critical Parameters (Manual)



F-T Durable Concrete Air Content

(%)

Void Frequency

(voids/mm)

Specific Surface

(mm2/mm

3)

Spacing Factor

(mm)

Ternary Concrete (Current Study) –

Manual Point-Count Method 8.0 0.28 19 0.20

Ternary Concrete (Current Study) –

Automatic Technique Using Scanner 6.8 0.28 24 0.20

Recommended as per Hover (1994) na (0.04-0.06)×Air

Content 16-24 0.20

Recommended as per

ASTM C 457 na 0.32 na 0.20

27

• Comparison of Zone Boundaries for Manual and Automatic Methods

• Comparison of Critical Air-Void System Parameters

Boundary Method Air Content

(%)

Void Frequency

(voids/mm)

Specific Surface

(mm2/mm

3)

Spacing Factor

(mm)

Manual 4.5 0.21 14.4 0.30 Zone I – II

Automatic 4.7 0.24 15.8 0.26

Manual Zone II – III

Automatic

8.0

6.8

0.28

0.28

19.4

23.6

0.20

0.20


– Critical Parameters (Comparison)



CAH

Stamp

28

• Relative Performance Ranking for Laboratory Ternary Mixtures

(1 – Best, 4 – Worst)

Optimum Fly Ash and

Silica Fume Contents


Compressive Strength

1 2 3 4 3

Resistance to Chloride-Ion Penetration

1 1 2 2 4

Rate of Absorption

1 1 2 2 3

Scaling Resistance

2 1 3 4 n/a

Freeze-Thaw Resistance

3 3 4 4 1

Resistance to Shrinkage Cracking

1 2 3 4 4

Cost ($/m3) 126 136 128 139 123

Mixture

Parameter



29

Field Performance

– Pilot INDOT HPC Bridge Deck

• Bridge deck on SR 23 over US 20 near South Bend, IN (202 ft. span)

• Mixture similar to 20FA/5SF from lab study

• Laboratory Trial Batch (LTB)

• Trial Batch Demonstration (TBD): Oct. 5, 2004

• Phase 1 Construction (BDC-1): Nov. 3, 2004

• Phase 2 Construction (BDC-2): May 17, 2005

PHASE 1 (BDC-1) PHASE 2 (BDC-2)

Pump

(Phase I)

Pump

(Phase I)

Crane & bucket

(Phase II)

Crane & bucket

(Phase II)

Conveyor belt

(Phase II)

Conveyor belt

(Phase II)



30

Field Performance

– Concrete Properties2D Graph 7

Time (days)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Te

mp

era

ture

(ºC

)

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

BDC-1 Temperature

Ambient

Bridge deck

First

exposure to

deicing salts

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 28 56 84 112 140 168 196 224 252 280 308

Time (days)

RC

P (

Coulo

mbs)

BDC-1 - field exposure

BDC-1 - cores

BDC-2 - moist cured


LTB - moist cured

FTB - moist cured

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 14 28 42 56 70 84 98

Time (days)

Co

mp

ressiv

e S

tre

ng

th (

MP

a)



BDC-2 - moist cured

LTB - moist cured

FTB - moist cured (152×305 mm)

-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

0 14 28 42 56 70 84 98 112 126

Time (days)

Fre

e S

hrinkage (

mic

rostr

ain

s)

d

BDC-1

BDC-2

LTB

FTB



CAH

Stamp

31

Field Performance

– Bridge Inspection (Dec. 2006)

• Scaling Comparison: BDC-1 ; BDC-2

Phase 1 (BDC-1) Phase 2 (BDC-2)



32

Conclusions

• Synergistic effects exist in ternary system mostly at later age (>7 days)

and can be attributed to both physical and chemical interactions

• All ternary concretes studied exhibit excellent transport properties

(very low chloride penetrability and water absorptivity)

• To ensure adequate strength and good resistance to salt scaling,

freeze-thaw and shrinkage cracking 20%FA, 5% SF & paste<25%

• Good quality curing (≥3 days burlap) is critical to satisfactory

performance

• Properties most affected by lack of curing of ternary concrete include

RCP, absorptivity, scaling (30% FA) and long-term strength

• Ternary mixtures with 30% FA are more sensitive to lack of curing

than 20% FA (wrt. strength and RCP) but less sensitive wrt. shrinkage



33

Conclusions

• Air-void system of OPC/FA/SF concrete does not seem to require

lower spacing factor, as long as slump < 190 mm

• Flatbed scanner can be efficiently used in lieu of manual method

to discern between F-T durable and F-T non-durable concrete

• Field performance of ternary concrete was generally satisfactory,

except for high initial RCP and low initial scaling resistance



34

Acknowledgments

• Joint Transportation Research Program FHWA/IN/JTRP-

2008/29-2, High-Performance Concrete Bridge Decks:

A Fast-Track Implementation Study



Documents

Development of Ternary OPC/FA/SF Binder System …...Development of Ternary OPC/FA/SF Binder System for Bridge Decks Concrete Prof. Jan Olek (Purdue University) Dr. Mateusz Radlinski