Optimized Aggregate Gradation for Structural …sddot.com/business/research/projects/docs/SD2002_02_Final_Report.pdfOptimized Aggregate Gradation for Structural Concrete ... Optimized

South DakotaDepartment of Transp

SD2002-02-F

ortaOffice of Research

Connecting South Dakota and the Nati

tion

on

Optimized Aggregate Gradation for Structural Concrete

Study SD2002-02 Draft Final Report

Prepared by Dr. V. Ramakrishnan Distinguished Professor, SDSM&T. 501 East St. Joseph Street Rapid City, SD 57701-3995 Ph: (605) 394 – 2403 April 2004

DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the South Dakota Department of Transportation, the State Transportation Commission, or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was performed under the supervision of the SD2002-06 Technical Panel: Mark Clausen…………………………FHW John Cole ................Office of Bridge Design Brenda Flottmeyer .............. Rapid City Area Greg Fuller ..............Office of Bridge Design Darin Hodges………Materials and Surfacing

Mare Hoelscher .........................Road Design Ron McMahon ........Materials and Surfacing Daris Ormesher ............... Office of Research Daniel Strand……………Office of Research

The work was performed in cooperation with the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.

ii

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. Report No. SD2002-02

2. Government Accession No.

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle Optimized Aggregate Gradation for Structural Concrete

5. Report Date April, 2004

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) Dr. V. Ramakrishnan

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering SDSM&T 501 East St. Joseph Street Rapid City, SD 57701-3995 (605) 394 – 2403

10. Work Unit No.

11. Contract or Grant No. 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address South Dakota Department of Transportation Office of Research 700 East Broadway Avenue Pierre, SD 57501-2586

13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Project Monitor: Daris Ormesher 16. Abstract This report presents the results of an experimental investigation to produce a new set of Class A45 Concrete mix designs-using SDDOT aggregate sources-that minimize drying shrinkage by optimizing the coarse aggregate amount and gradation, and minimize cement and water content, while maintaining or improving strength, durability and workability. A comprehensive literature review relevant to optimized aggregate gradation and its effect on strength and durability aspects of concrete was done, which helped in planning and conducting this research project. Four methods pertaining to obtaining optimized aggregate gradation: 0.45 power chart, 8-18 method, USAF constructability chart method and Shilstone method, were studied and used for this investigation. It was found that all the four methods complement each other to a great extent. A detailed investigation was carried out to determine the validity of 0.45 power chart for obtaining the densest compaction of quartzite aggregates. It was found that the mix incorporating the 0.45 power chart gradation gave the highest strength and better workability when compared to other power charts and control concrete. Thus the

45 power chart is universally applicable to all aggregates. 0. For practical considerations, in order to make it easier for aggregate suppliers, only two standard sizes (1.5” and ¾” maximum sizes) of coarse aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite) were selected for blending and optimization with medium sand (FM = 2.84) in different proportions to satisfy the target gradation. After optimizing the aggregate gradation the cement content in the concrete mix was optimized (to reduce the shrinkage cracks in concrete) without compromising the strength and workability requirements. Different percentage reductions in cement content (8.4%, 10%, and 15%) were tried and tested for strength and workability characteristics. It was found from trial mixes that by using well graded aggregates the cement content could be reduced to a maximum of 10% without compromising the strength and workability. A number of trial mixes were done by varying the water-cement ratio from 0.40 to 0.45. The water-cement ratio of 0.42 was chosen as the optimum one. An air entraining agent and when necessary a medium range water educer should be added to optimum concretes for satisfying the SDDOT requirements for slump and air content. r

A total of twelve mixes for each aggregate (quartzite, limestone and granite) were done for investigating the strength and durability properties for bridge deck concrete, of which four were control concretes, four were optimum concretes with no fly ash and four were optimum concretes with fly ash. In fly ash mixes 20% by weight of cement was replaced with 25% by weight of fly ash. Test results indicated that by using the optimum aggregate gradation, there was decrease in drying shrinkage, creep and shrinkage, chloride ion permeability and increased resistance to alkali aggregate reactivity, sulfate attack, freeze thaw attack, scaling resistance to deicing chemicals, and rapid chloride permeability. There was also an increase in setting times for fly ash concrete when compared to that of the control concretes and optimum concretes without fly ash. The compressive strengths of optimum concretes were higher than that of the control concrete. All the mixes had good workability, even when there was a reduction of 10% in cement content for the optimum mixes. The finishability of the optimum mix with fly ash was better than the control mix and optimum mix without fly ash. In general there was an improvement in the durability performance of concretes made with the optimized aggregate gradations. 17. Keywords Optimized aggregate gradation, 0.45 power chart, USAF method, 8-18 method, Shilstone method, coarseness factor, workability factor, fineness modulus, Fly ash, Chloride permeability, High performance concrete, Durability of concrete, Strength Development, alkali-aggregate reactivity, freeze thaw, scaling, sulfate attack, creep and shrinkage, setting time, drying shrinkage

18. Distribution Statement No restrictions. This document is available to the public from the sponsoring agency.

19. Security Classification (of this report) Unclassified

20. Security Classification (of this page) Unclassified

21. No. of Pages # of pages

22. Price

iii

iv

CONTENTS Cover Page . . . . . . . . . . i

Disclaimer and Acknowledgements . . . . . . . ii

Title Page . . . . . . . . . . iii

Contents . . . . . . . . . . iv

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . ix

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . xi

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . xvi

Chapter 1.0 Executive Summary 1.1 Problem Description . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Research Objective . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 Literature Review . . . . . . . . 2 1.4 Blending of Aggregates . . . . . . . 2 1.5 Trial Mixes . . . . . . . . . 3 1.6 Evaluation of Selected Optimum Mixes . . . . . 4 1.7 Tests on Fresh Concrete . . . . . . . 4 1.8 Tests on Hardened Concrete . . . . . . . 5 1.9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . 9 1.10 Recommendations . . . . . . . . 13

Chapter 2.0 Problem Description and Objective 2.1. Problem Description . . . . . . . . 18 2.2. Research Objective . . . . . . . . 20 2.3. Materials

2.3.1 Cement . . . . . . . . 20 2.3.2 Coarse Aggregate . . . . . . . 20 2.3.3 Fine Aggregate . . . . . . . 21 2.3.4 Water . . . . . . . . . 21 2.3.5 Admixtures . . . . . . . . 21

2.4 Tests on Concrete 2.4.1 Tests on Fresh Concrete . . . . . . 21 2.4.2 Tests on Hardened Concrete

2.4.2.1 Compressive Strength and Static Modulus . . . 22 2.4.2.2 Modulus of Rupture Test . . . . . 22

2.4.3 Durability Tests on Concrete . . . . . . 22 2.4.3.1 Determination of Initial and Final

Setting time (ASTM C 403) . . . . . 22 2.4.3.2 Scaling Resistance of Concrete Surfaces Exposed

to Deicing Chemicals (ASTM C 672) . . . 23 2.4.3.3 Length Change of Mortar Bars Exposed to Sulfate

Solution (ASTM C 1012) . . . . . 24 2.4.3.4 Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCPT)

(ASTM C 1202) . . . . . . 25 2.4.3.5 Standard test method for potential alkali reactivity

of aggregates (ASTM C 1260) . . . . 27

v

2.4.3.6 Drying shrinkage of Concrete (ASTM C 157) . . 29 2.4.3.7 Creep of Concrete in Compression (ASTM C512) . . 30 2.4.3.8 Resistance to Freezing and Thawing of

Concrete (ASTM C 666) . . . . . 34 2.4.3.9 Concrete Plastic Shrinkage Reduction Potential

2.4.3.9.1 Test Method . . . . . 36 2.4.3.9.2 Mix Proportions . . . . . 36

2.4.3.10 Temperature monitoring in Concrete using Thermochron I-Button . . . . . 37

2.5 Test Specimens 2.5.1 Determination of Initial and Final

Setting Time (ASTM C403) . . . . . . 39 2.5.2 Strength Development . . . . . . 39 2.5.3 Sulfate Attack on Concrete . . . . . . 39 2.5.4 Resistance to Rapid Freezing and Thawing of Concrete . . 39 2.5.5 Scaling Resistance of Concrete Surfaces Exposed

to Deicing Chemicals . . . . . . . 39 2.5.6 Alkali Aggregate Reactivity . . . . . . 40 2.5.7 Drying Shrinkage of Concrete . . . . . 40 2.5.8 Creep of Concrete in Compression . . . . . 40

Chapter 3.0 Task Description 3.1 Task 1 . . . . . . . . . . 41

3.1.1 Gradation of Aggregates . . . . . . 41 3.1.2 Methods for Optimizing Aggregate Gradation . . . 49

3.1.2.1 0.45 Power Chart Method . . . . . 49 3.1.2.1.1 Maximum Density Line . . . 50

3.1.2.1.2 Validation of 0.45 Power Chart in obtaining the Optimized Aggregate Gradation for

Improving the Strength Aspects of High Performance Concrete . . . 51

3.1.2.2 Shilstone Method . . . . . . 52 3.1.2.2.1 Mortar Factor . . . . . 54 3.1.2.2.2 Aggregate particle distribution . . . 54

3.1.2.3 USAF Constructability Chart 3.1.2.3.1 Coarseness Factor Chart . . . . 56

3.1.2.4 8-18 Method . . . . . . . 57 3.1.3 Fly Ash . . . . . . . . 59

3.1.3.1 Advantages of using Fly Ash in Concrete . . . 60 3.1.4 Setting Time of Concrete . . . . . . 61 3.1.5 Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals . . 62 3.1.6 Sulfate Attack on Concrete . . . . . . 65 3.1.6.1 Ettringite Formation by Sulfate Attack . . . 65 3.1.7 Chloride Permeability in Concrete . . . . . 68 3.1.8 Alkali-aggregate reactivity (AAR) . . . . . 72 3.1.8.1 Conditions conducive to alkali-aggregate reactivity . . 77

3.1.9 Drying Shrinkage in Concrete . . . . . 80

vi

3.1.10 Creep and Shrinkage in Concrete . . . . . 84 3.1.11 Freeze Thaw Resistance of Concrete . . . . . 85

3.1.11.1 Factors affecting Durability of Concrete in Freezing and Thawing . . . . . 87

3.1.12 Concrete Plastic Shrinkage Reduction Potential . . . 90 3.2 Task 2 . . . . . . . . . . 94 3.3 Task 3 . . . . . . . . . . 94 3.4 Task 4 . . . . . . . . . . 107

3.4.1 Blending of Quartzite Aggregates . . . . . 107 3.4.2 Blending of Limestone Aggregates . . . . . 109 3.4.3 Blending of Granite Aggregates . . . . . 111

3.5 Task 5 . . . . . . . . . 113 3.6 Task 6 . . . . . . . . . 121 3.7 Task 7 . . . . . . . . . 122 3.7.1 Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . . 122 3.7.2 Limestone Aggregate . . . . . . . 122 3.7.3 Granite Aggregate . . . . . . . 123 3.8 Task 8 . . . . . . . . . 123 3.9 Task 9 . . . . . . . . . 124 3.10 Task 10 . . . . . . . . . 125 3.11 Task 11 . . . . . . . . . 126 3.12 Task 12 . . . . . . . . . 126 3.13 Task 13 . . . . . . . . . 127 3.14 Task 14 . . . . . . . . . 129 3.15 Task 15 . . . . . . . . . 130

Chapter 4.0 Results and Discussions 4.1 Fresh Concrete Properties

4.1.1 Fresh Concrete Properties with Quartzite Aggregates . . 131 4.1.2 Fresh Concrete Properties with Limestone Aggregates . . 131 4.1.3 Fresh Concrete Properties with Granite Aggregates . . 132

4.2 Quartzite Aggregate 4.2.1 Mix used for Strength Development and Alkali Aggregate Reactivity

4.2.1.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 134 4.2.1.2 Hardened Concrete Properties

4.2.1.2.1 Compressive Strength . . . . 136 4.2.1.2.2 Static Modulus . . . . . 139 4.2.1.2.3 Dry Unit Weight . . . . . 140 4.2.1.2.4 Modulus of Rupture (Flexural Strength) . . 140 4.2.1.2.5 Sulfate Resistance of Concrete . . . 141

4.2.1.3 Chloride Permeability Test . . . . . 143 4.2.1.4 Drying Shrinkage Deformations . . . . 144

4.2.2 Mix used for Initial and Final Setting Times, Deicer Chemicals, Resistance to Freeze-Thaw cycles and Alkali aggregate reactivity 4.2.2.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 145 4.2.2.2 Initial and Final Setting Times . . . . 146

vii

4.2.2.3 Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals . . . . . . 148 4.2.2.4 Alkali Aggregate Reactivity . . . . . 151 4.2.2.5 Freeze Thaw Resistance . . . . . 152

4.2.3 Mix used for creep of concrete 4.2.3.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 156 4.2.3.2 Creep and Shrinkage . . . . . . 156 4.2.3.3 Creep Recovery . . . . . . 159

4.3 Limestone Aggregate 4.3.1 Mix used for Strength Development, Flexure, Alkali

Aggregate Reactivity and Freeze Thaw Resistance 4.3.1.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 160 4.3.1.2 Hardened Concrete Properties

4.3.1.2.1 Compressive Strength . . . . 162 4.3.1.2.2 Static Modulus . . . . . 164 4.3.1.2.3 Dry Unit Weight . . . . . 165 4.3.1.2.4 Modulus of Rupture (Flexural Strength) . . 166 4.3.1.2.5 Alkali Aggregate Reactivity . . . 167

4.3.1.3 Freeze Thaw Resistance . . . . . 170 4.3.2 Mix used for Initial and Final Setting Times, Deicer

Scaling and Sulfate Resistance of Concrete 4.3.2.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 174 4.3.2.2 Initial and Final Setting Time . . . . . 175 4.3.2.3 Sulfate Resistance of Concrete . . . . 178 4.3.2.4 Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals . 179

4.3.3 Mix used for Rapid Chloride Permeability, Drying Shrinkage and Creep of Concrete

4.3.3.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 182 4.3.3.2 Chloride Permeability Test . . . . . 183 4.3.3.3 Drying Shrinkage Deformations . . . . 185 4.3.3.4 Creep and Shrinkage . . . . . . 187

4.3.3.4.1 Creep Recovery . . . . . 190 4.4 Granite Aggregate

4.4.1 Mix Used for Strength Development, Sulfate Resistance to Concrete and Chloride Permeability 4.4.1.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 191 4.4.1.2 Hardened Concrete Properties

4.4.1.2.1 Compressive Strength . . . . 193 4.4.1.2.2 Static Modulus . . . . . 196 4.4.1.2.3 Dry Unit Weight . . . . . 196 4.4.1.2.4 Modulus of Rupture (Flexural Strength) . . 197

4.4.1.3 Sulfate Resistance . . . . . . 198 4.4.1.4 Chloride Permeability Test . . . . . 199

4.4.2 Mix used for Initial and Final Setting Times, Alkali Aggregate Reactivity and Freeze Thaw Resistance

4.4.2.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 201

viii

4.4.2.2 Initial and Final Setting Times . . . . 202 4.4.2.3 Alkali Aggregate Reactivity . . . . . 204 4.4.2.4 Freeze Thaw Resistance . . . . . 205 4.4.3 Mix used for Drying Shrinkage and Deicer

Scaling Resistance 4.4.3.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 208 4.4.3.2 Drying Shrinkage Deformations . . . . 209 4.4.3.3 Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing

Chemicals . . . . . . . 211 4.4.4 Mix used for Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete

4.4.4.1 Fresh Concrete Properties . . . . . 213 4.4.4.2 Creep and Shrinkage . . . . . . 214 4.4.4.3 Creep Recovery . . . . . . 216 4.4.4.4 Plastic Shrinkage Tests of all the Materials . . . 217

4.5 Temperature monitoring in Concrete using Thermochron I-Button . . 218

Chapter 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 5.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . 227 5.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . 235

References . . . . . . . . . . 239 Appendix A Details of Tables and Figures of Sieve Analysis,

Optimization, Aggregate Gradation, Trial Mixes and Fresh Concrete properties for Optimization of mixture proportions . . . . . A-1 to A-54

Appendix B Details of Hardened Concrete properties of mixes done for the determination of Strength Development . B-1 to B-20

Appendix C Details of Setting Times for all concretes with Quartzite, Limestone and Granite Aggregate . . . C-1 TO C-12

Appendix D Details of mixes done for the determination of resistance to Sulfate Attack . . . . . D-1 to D-5

Appendix E Details of mixes done for the determination of Rapid Chloride Permeability Test . . . . E-1 to E-3

Appendix F Details of mixes done for the determination of Alkali Aggregate Reactivity . . . . . F-1 to F-15

Appendix G Details of mixes done for the determination of Drying Shrinkage . . . . . . G1 to G-5

Appendix H Details of mixes done for the determination of Creep and Shrinkage . . . . . . H-1 to H-36

Appendix I Details of mixes done for the determination of Freeze Thaw . . . . . . . I-1 to I-10

Appendix J Concrete Plastic Shrinkage Reduction Potential . . J-1 to J-4 Appendix K Validity of 0.45 Power Chart in Obtaining the Optimized

Aggregate Gradation for Improving the Strength Aspects of High Performance Concrete . . . . K-1 to K-10

Appendix L Temperature Monitoring With I-Button . . . L-1 to L-9

ix

LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title Page No.

Chapter 3.0 3.1 Chloride Permeability Based on charge passed . . . 70 3.2 Summary of the Total Number of Cracks in the Bridges . . 97 3.3 Summary of the Total Number of Deleterious Cracks

(Width >0.18 mm) . . . . . . . 98 3.4 Summary of Total Area of Cracks Per 1000 Sq, ft . . . 98 3.5 Summary of Total Area of Cracks (Width > 0.18 mm)

Per 1000 Sq. ft . . . . . . . 99 3.6 Available Concrete Details for the Inspected Bridge Deck . . 106 3.7 Summary of Finesse Moduli of the Quartzite Aggregates . . 108 3.8 Combined Aggregate Gradation for Quartzite Aggregate . . 108 3.9 Summary of Fineness Moduli Results . . . . 109 3.10 Combined Aggregate Gradation of Blend I (30%, 35%, and 35%) . 110 3.11 Combined Aggregate Gradation of Blend II (23%, 42%, and 35%) . 110 3.12 Combined Aggregate Gradation for Granite Aggregate . . 112 3.13 Mixture Designations . . . . . . . 114 3.14 Mixture Proportions for Trial Mixes of Bridge Deck

Concretes with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . 115 3.15 Comparison of Compressive Strength of Trial Mixes of

Bridge Deck Concretes with Quartzite Aggregate . . . 116 3.16 Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concretes with

Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . . 119 3.17 Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Limestone Aggregate . . . . . . . 120 3.18 Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Granite Aggregate . . . . . . . 121 3.19 Recommended Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck

Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . 125 3.20 Recommended Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck

Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . 127 3.21 Recommended Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck

Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . 128 3.22 Recommended Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck

Concrete with Granite Aggregate . . . . . 129 Chapter 4.0 4.1 Summary of Initial and Final Setting Time of Bridge

Deck Concrete . . . . . . . 146 4.2 Comparison of Scaling Resistance for Bridge Deck

Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . 148 4.3 Summary of mean percent expansion of Alkali Aggregate

specimens for Bridge deck concrete . . . . . 151

x

4.4 Saturated surface dry Absorption coefficient for Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete . . . . . 155

4.5 Summary of mean percent expansion of Alkali Aggregate specimens of trial mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete . . . 168

4.5.1 Summary of mean percent expansion of Alkali Aggregate specimens for Final Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . 169 4.6 Saturated Surface Dry Absorption Coefficient for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . 173 4.7 Summary of Initial and Final Setting Times of Trial Bridge

Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . 176 4.7.1 Summary of Initial and Final Setting Times of Bridge Deck

Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . 176 4.8 Comparison of Scaling Resistance for Bridge Deck

Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . 180 4.9 Summary of Initial and Final Setting Times for Bridge Deck

Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . 202 4.10 Summary of Mean Percent Expansion of Alkali Aggregate

Specimens for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . 204 4.11 Saturated Surface Dry Absorption Coefficient for Bridge Deck

Concrete with Granite Aggregate . . . .. . 208 4.12 Comparison of Scaling Resistance for Bridge Deck Concrete

with Granite Aggregate . . . . . . 211 4.13 Mix Designations for all the Mixes . . . . . 219 4.14 Change (increase) in temperature observed for all the mixes . . 219 4.15 Compressive Strength of all the mixes at the age of 7 days . . 220

xi

LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Title Page No.

Chapter 3.0 3.1 Gradation of Aggregate [9] . . . . . . 41 3.2 Gradation of Aggregates [10] . . . . . . 42 3.3 Modified Coarseness Factor Chart [2] . . . . 46 3.4 0.45 Power Chart for 1 inch Aggregate . . . . 50 3.5 Well-graded mixture [11] . . . . . . 52 3.6 Gap-graded mixture [11] . . . . . . 52 3.7 Concrete Aggregate Grading Chart [11] . . . . 53 3.8 Near gap-graded mixture [11] . . . . . 55 3.9 Optimum graded mixture [11] . . . . . 55 3.10 Combined gradation (1929 ASTM C33) [11] . . . . 56 3.11 USAF Constructability Chart [23] . . . . . 57 3.12 Well-graded Aggregate [23] . . . . . . 58 3.13 Gap-graded Aggregate [23] . . . . . . 58 3.14 Total Number of Cracks in Bridges (East river) . . . 99 3.15 Total Number of Cracks in Bridges (West River) . . . 100 3.16 Total Area of Cracks per 1000 Sq.ft (East River) . . . 101 3.17 Total Area of Cracks per 1000 Sq.ft (West River) . . . 102 3.18 Total Area of Deleterious Cracks per 1000 Sq.ft (East river) . 102 3.19 Total Area of Deleterious Cracks per 1000 Sq.ft (West river) . 103 3.20 Comparison of Steel and Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridges for

Total Area of Deleterious Cracks per 1000 sq.ft (East River) . 104 3.21 Comparison of Steel and Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridges for Total Area of Deleterious Cracks per 1000 sq.ft (West River) . 105 3.22 Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bridge Deck Concretes

with Quartzite Aggregate (Trial Mix w/c – 0.45) . . . 117 3.23 Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bridge Deck Concretes with Quartzite Aggregate (Trial Mix w/c – 0.45 repeat) . . 117 3.24 Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bridge Deck Concretes

with Quartzite Aggregate (Trial Mix w/c – 0.43) . . . 118 3.25 Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bridge Deck Concretes

with Quartzite Aggregate (Trial Mix w/c – 0.42) . . . 118 3.26 Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bridge Deck Concretes

with Quartzite Aggregate (Trial Mix w/c – 0.4) . . . 119 Chapter 4.0 4.1 Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . . 134 4.2 Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 1) . . . . . . 135 4.3 Comparison of Unit Weights for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . . 135

xii

4.4 Comparison of Compressive Strengths for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . 137

4.5 Comparison of Static modulus for Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . 139

4.6 Comparison of Dry Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . 140

4.7 Comparison of Flexural strength for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . 141

4.8 Mean expansion of mortar bars (Quartzite Aggregate) subjected to sulfate solution . . . . . . . 142

4.9 Comparison of Chloride ion permeability for Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . 143

4.10 Comparison of Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Bridge Deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . 144

4.11 Comparison of Drying Shrinkage Deformations at the end of 90 days for Bridge Deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . 145

4.12 Comparison of Initial Setting time for Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . 147

4.13 Comparison of Final Setting time for Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . . 147

4.14 ASTM classification chart for Deicer Scaling . . . 149 4.15 Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete – After 50 cycles of

Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals . 149 4.16 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash –

After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals . . . . . . . 150

4.17 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash – After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals . . . . . . . 150

4.18 Comparison of Mean Expansion of Mortar bars subjected to Alkali Solution for Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite aggregate . . 152

4.19 Change in Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing . . . . . . . 153

4.20 Comparison of Mean Expansion for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing . . . . . . . 154

4.21 Total Unit strain and Unit Shrinkage strains for all the three concretes with Quartzite Aggregate at the end of 60 days . . . . 157

4.22 Comparison of Unit Specific Creep at the end of 60 days for concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . 158

4.23 Comparison of Creep rate for the Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate . . . . . . . 158

4.24 Comparison of Unit Creep Strain and Unit Elastic and Creep Recovery on Unloading for Quartzite Aggregate . . . 159

xiii

4.25 Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate (Mix 2) . . . . . . 160

4.26 Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate (Mix 2) . . . . . . 161

4.27 Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate (Mix 2) . . . . . . 162

4.28 Comparison of Compressive Strength for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . 163

4.29 Comparison of Static Modulus for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . . 165

4.30 Comparison of Dry Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . . 166

4.31 Comparison of Flexural Strength for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . . 167

4.32 Comparison of Alkali Aggregate Reactivity for Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . 169

4.33 Comparison of Alkali Aggregate Reactivity for Final Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . 170

4.34 Change in Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Limestone Aggregates subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing . . . . . . . 171

4.35 Comparison of Mean Expansion for Bridge Deck Concrete specimens with Limestone Aggregates subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing . . . . . . . 172

4.36 Comparison of Initial Setting Time for Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . 176

4.37 Comparison of Initial Setting Time for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . . 177

4.38 Comparison of Final Setting Time for Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . 177

4.39 Comparison of Final Setting Time for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . . 178

4.40 Mean Sulfate Expansions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . . . 179

4.41 Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete – After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in presence of Deicing Chemicals . . 180 4.42 Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash –

After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in presence of Deicing Chemicals . . . . . . . 181

4.43 Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash – After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in presence of Deicing Chemicals . . . . . . . 181

4.44 Comparison of Permeability values for trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . 184

4.45 Comparison of Permeability values for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate . . . . . . 184

xiv

4.46 Comparisons of Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates . . . . 185

4.47 Comparisons of Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates . . . . 186 4.48 Comparisons of Drying Shrinkage Deformations at the

end of 90 days for Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates . . . . . . 186

4.49 Comparisons of Drying Shrinkage Deformations at the end of 90 days for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates . 187

4.50 Comparison of Total Unit Strains and Unit Shrinkage Strains for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates . . 188

4.51 Comparison of Unit Specific Creep for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates . . . . . . 189

4.52 Creep Rate for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates . . . . . . . . 189

4.53 Comparison of Unit Creep Strain and Unit Elastic Strain and Creep Recovery on Unloading for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates . . . . . . 190

4.54 Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 1) with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . . 191

4.55 Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 1) with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . 192

4.56 Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 1) with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . 192

4.57 Comparison of Compressive Strengths for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate . . . . . 194

4.58 Comparison of Static Modulus for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . 196

4.59 Comparison of Dry Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . 197

4.60 Comparison of Flexural Strengths for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . 198

4.61 Mean Sulfate Expansion for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . . 199

4.62 Comparison of Chloride Permeability values for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . 200

4.63 Comparison of Initial Setting Times for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . 203

4.64 Comparison of Final Setting Times for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . 203

4.65 Comparison of Alkali Aggregate Reactivity for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . 205

4.66 Change in Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Granite Aggregate subjected To Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing . . . . . . . 206

xv

4.67 Comparison of Mean Expansion for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Granite Aggregate Subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing . . . . . . . 207

4.68 Comparison of Drying Shrinkage Deformation for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . 210

4.69 Comparison of Drying Shrinkage Deformations at the end of 60 Days for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . . 210

4.70 Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete – after 50 Cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals . . . . . . . 212

4.71 Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash after 50 Cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals . . . . . . . 212

4.72 Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash after 50 Cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals . . . . . . . 213

4.73 Comparison of Total Unit Strains and Unit Shrinkage Strains for Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . 215

4.74 Comparison of Unit Specific Creep for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . . . . . . 215

4.75 Creep Rate for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates . 216 4.76 Comparison of Unit Creep Strain and Unit Elastic Strain and Creep Recovery on Unloading for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate . . . . . . 217 4.77 Typical Variation of concrete (1OLFB) temperature over a period of 7 days . . . . . . . 225

xvi

GLOSSARY

The following is a glossary of terms for Optimized Aggregate gradation used in this report. 0.1 General Terms 0.45 Power Chart – A cumulative percent-passing grading curve in which the horizontal axis is marked off in sieve-opening sizes raised to the 0.45 power. 8-18 Method – Uses the Percent of aggregate retained on each sieve size, for a well graded aggregate, this percent will be less than 18 but more than 8. A gap-graded aggregate combination will have peaks above 18 percent retained or below 8 percent retained. Admixtures – Admixtures are materials other than water, aggregate, or hydraulic cement, which are added to the batch immediately before or during the mixing operation. Their function is to modify properties of concrete so as to make it more suitable for the work at hand, or for economy, or for other purposes such as saving energy. Air Entraining Agent – An admixture that causes the development of microscopic air bubbles in the concrete during mixing. Air Content – The volume of air voids in concrete, exclusive of pore space in aggregate particles. Alkali Aggregate Reactivity – a chemical reaction of alkali in concrete and certain alkaline reactive minerals in aggregate producing a hygroscopic gel which, when moisture present, absorbs water and expand. Chloride Permeability of Concrete - Measure of concrete’s ability to resist penetration of chloride ions. Coarseness Factor – The coarseness factor for a particular combined aggregate gradation is determined by dividing the amount retained above the 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) sieve by the amount retained above the No.8 sieve (2.36 mm). Curing – Action taken to maintain moisture and temperature conditions in a freshly placed cementitious mixture to allow hydraulic cement hydration and (if applicable) pozzolanic reactions to occur so that the potential properties of the mixture may develop. Creep Strain – Creep is defined as the total strain in a loaded specimen minus the initial elastic strain and the shrinkage in an unloaded companion specimen subjected to a similar environment.

xvii

Creep Recovery – Rate of decrease in deformation that occurs when load is removed after prolonged application in a creep test. Drying Shrinkage/Shrinkage Strain – Drying shrinkage (DS) of concrete is defined as the time dependent deformation due to loss of water at constant temperature and relative humidity (RH). Durability – The ability of concrete to remain unchanged while in service; resistance to weathering action, chemical attack, and abrasion. Dense or Well-Graded Gradation – Refers to a gradation where gap between larger particles is effectively filled by smaller particles.

Elastic Recovery – If a sustained load is removed, the strain decreases immediately by an amount equal to the elastic strain at the given age. Entrained Air – Round, uniformly distributed, microscopic, non-coalescing air bubbles entrained by the use of air-entraining agents; usually less than 1 mm in size. Entrapped Air – Air in concrete that is not purposely entrained. Entrapped air is generally considered to be large voids (larger than 1 mm). Flexural Toughness – The area under the flexural load-deflection curve obtained from a static test of a specimen up to a specified deflection. It is an indication of the energy absorption capability of a material. Fly ash - Fly ash is a finely divided residue, which is the by-product of the combustion of ground or powdered coal exhaust fumes of coal-fired power stations. Gap Graded Gradation – Refers to a gradation that contains only a small percentage of aggregate particles in the mid-size range. Gradation – The particle size distribution of the aggregates is called gradation. Heat of Hydration – Heat of hydration is the heat generated by the chemical reactions, which occur in setting concrete between the water and cement. High Performance Concrete - Concrete in which certain desired properties have been enhanced, for a given application, beyond the properties for plain concrete. High Strength Concrete - Concrete with compressive strength in excess of 42 MPa (6000 psi) is referred to as high strength concrete. iButton – The iButton is a computer chip enclosed in a 16mm stainless steel can, used for recording the temperature with desired time interval.

xviii

Ice Accretion – Growth or increase in size by gradual external addition, fusion, or inclusion. Impact Strength – The total energy required to break a standard test specimen of a specified size under specified impact conditions, as given by ACI Committee 544. Initial Elastic Strain – The initial elastic strain is the strain reading immediately after loading. Intermediate Aggregate – Intermediate aggregate is defined as that with particles passing the 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) sieve but retained on the No. 8 sieve (2.36 mm). Maximum Size of Aggregate (ASTM C-125) – In specifications for, or description of aggregate, the smallest sieve opening through which the entire amount of aggregate is required to pass. Nominal Maximum Size of Aggregate (ASTM C-125) – In specifications for, or description of aggregate, the smallest sieve opening through which the entire amount of aggregate is permitted to pass. Medium Range Water Reducer – An additive that is mixed into the concrete, allows the concrete mix to become easier to work with without adding additional water. Overlay -The addition of a new material layer onto an existing pavement surface. Permeability – Permeability is defined as the coefficient representing the rate at which water is transmitted through a saturated specimen of concrete under an externally maintained hydraulic gradient.

Plastic Shrinkage Cracking - Cracks, usually parallel and only a few inches deep and several feet long, in the surface(s) of concrete pavement that are the result of rapid moisture loss through evaporation.

Portland Cement – A commercial product which when mixed with water alone or in combination with sand, stone, or similar materials, has the property of combining with water, slowly, to form a hard solid mass. Physically, portland cement is a finely pulverized clinker produced by burning mixtures containing lime, iron, alumina, and silica at high temperature and in definite proportions, and then intergrinding gypsum to give the properties desired.

Portland Cement Concrete – A composite material that consists essentially of a binding medium (Portland cement and water) within which are embedded particles or fragments of aggregate, usually a combination of fine aggregate and course aggregate.

xix

Pozzolan – A siliceous or siliceous and aluminous material, which in itself possesses little or no cementitious value but will, in finely divided form and in the presence of moisture, chemically react with calcium hydroxide at ordinary temperatures to form compounds possessing cementitious properties. Prestressed Concrete – Structural concrete in which internal stresses have been introduced to reduce potential tensile stresses in concrete resulting from loads. Relative Humidity – The ratio of the quantity of water vapor actually present in the atmosphere to the amount present in a saturated atmosphere at a given temperature; expressed as a percentage. Retardation – Reduction in the rate of hardening or strength development of fresh concrete, mortar, or grout; i.e., an increase in the time required to reach initial and final set. Segregation – The unintentional separation of the constituents of concrete or particles of an aggregate causing a lack of uniformity in their distribution. Setting of Cement – Development of rigidity of cement paste, mortar, or concrete as a result of hydration of the cement. The paste formed when cement is mixed with water remains plastic for a short time. During this stage it is still possible to disturb the material and remix without injury, but as the reaction between the cement and water continues, the mass loses its plasticity. This early period in the hardening is called the "setting period," although there is not a well-defined break in the hardening process. Shilstone method – Developed by shilstone, uses a grading chart showing the aggregate gradations and the combined gradations for the coarsest, finest, and optimum mixtures. The chart is divided into three segments identified as Q, I, W (Q- The plus 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) sieve particles, I- The minus 3/8 inch (9.5 mm), plus No.8 (2.36 mm) sieve particles, and W- The minus No.8 (2.36 mm) sieve particles). Silica fume – Silica fume is a by-product resulting from the use of high purity quartz with coal in the electric arc furnace in the production of silicon and ferro silicon alloys. Static Modulus – The value of Young’s modulus of elasticity obtained from measuring stress-strain relationships derived from other than dynamic loading. Stress–Strength ratio – The amount of stress applied on the creep specimens with respect to the strength of the concrete at the respective age. Toughness – The ability to absorb energy and deform plastically before fracturing.

xx

Uniformly Graded Gradation –Refers to a gradation that contains most of the particles in a very narrow size range. . USAF Constructability Chart – Developed by U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. This chart makes use of the coarseness factor and workability factor of combined aggregate to decide whether the blend is well graded or gap graded. Water-Cement ratio – The ratio of the mass of water, exclusive only of that absorbed by the aggregates, to the mass of Portland cement in concrete, mortar, or grout, stated as a decimal. Water-Cementitious material ratio – The ratio of the mass of water, exclusive only of that absorbed by the aggregates, to the mass of cementitious material in concrete, mortar, or grout, stated as a decimal. Workability of Concrete – That property determining the effort required to manipulate a freshly mixed quantity of concrete with minimum loss of homogeneity. Workability Factor – The workability factor is the percentage of combined aggregate finer than the No.8 sieve. 0.2 Acronyms Used ACI – American Concrete Institute PCA – Portland Cement Association PCC – Portland Cement Concrete ASTM – American Society of Testing of Materials AASHTO – American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials FHWA – Federal Highway Administration SDDOT – South Dakota Department of Transportation HPC – High Performance Concrete HSC – High Strength Concrete MRWR – Medium Range Water Reducer HRWR – High Range Water Reducer RCPT – Rapid Chloride Permeability Test

xxi

AEA – Air Entraining Agent SDSM&T – South Dakota School of Mines & Technology SSD – Saturated Surface Dry CQB – Control Quartzite Bridgedeck Concrete OQB – Optimum Quartzite Bridgedeck Concrete OQFB –Optimum Quartzite Bridgedeck Concrete with Fly Ash CLB – Control Limestone Bridgedeck Concrete OLB – Optimum Limestone Bridgedeck Concrete OLFB –Optimum Limestone Bridgedeck Concrete with Fly Ash CGB – Control Granite Bridgedeck Concrete OGB – Optimum Granite Bridgedeck Concrete OGFB –Optimum Granite Bridgedeck Concrete with Fly Ash 0.3 ASTM Specifications C 31 - Practices for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field C 39 - Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens C 78 - Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third- point Loading) C 94 - Specification for Ready-Mixed Concrete C 125 - Terminology Relating to concrete and concrete aggregates C138 - Test for Unit Weight, Yield and Air Content (gravimetric) of concrete C 143 - Test Method for Slump of Portland Cement Concrete C 157 - Test Method for Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic-Cement Mortar and Concrete C 172 - Method of Sampling Freshly Mixed Concrete

xxii

C 173 - Test Method of Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Volumetric Method C 192 - Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory C 231 - Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method C 293 - Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam With Center-Point Loading) C 403 - Test Method for Time of Setting of Concrete Mixtures by Penetration Resistance C 469 - Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression C 490 - Use of Apparatus for the Determination of Length Change of Hardened Cement Paste, Mortar, and Concrete C494 - Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete C 496 - Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens C 512 - Test Method for Creep of Concrete in Compression C 618 - Specification for Fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use as a

mineral admixture in Portland Cement Concrete C 666 - Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing C 672 - Scaling Resistance of Concrete Surfaces Exposed to Deicing Chemicals C 1012 - Test Method for Length Change of Hydraulic-Cement Mortars Exposed to a Sulfate Solution C 1064 - Test Method for Temperature of Freshly Mixed Portland Cement Concrete C 1202 - Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration C 1260 - Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Aggregates (Mortar-Bar Method)

1

CHAPTER 1.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Problem Description

In South Dakota newly constructed bridges increasingly showing the early

transverse cracking. This restrained shrinkage cracking is easily identifiable in newly

constructed bridge decks, when the forms are removed. These cracks occur frequently

over the length of the deck at approximately 4.5 to 5.5 feet intervals. This cracking is

undesirable because it allows the ingress of water and chlorides that further damage the

structure. So it was always a challenge to the engineers to design a new set of class A45

concrete for bridge decks which should resist sulfate attack, be resistant to alkali-silica

reactivity (ASR), have minimal drying shrinkage cracking, and be nearly impermeable. If

a concrete appropriately addresses each of these properties then it is likely that bridge

deck maintenance will be reduced and its life would be increased.

There are normally two types of shrinkage cracks, (plastic shrinkage and drying

shrinkage cracks) which occur in bridge decks and pavements. Plastic shrinkage is

defined as the volume reduction that occurs before the concrete hardens. Plastic

shrinkage cracks are random cracks that sometimes occur in the exposed surface of fresh

concrete during or within the first few hours after the concrete has been placed, while the

concrete is still plastic and before attaining any significant strength. Drying shrinkage is

defined as the time dependent volume reduction due to loss of water at constant relative

humidity and temperature. The loss of moisture from concrete after it hardens, and hence,

drying shrinkage, is inevitable unless the concrete is submerged in water or is in an

environment with 100% Relative Humidity (RH). The driving force for drying shrinkage

is evaporation of water from capillary pores in hydrated cement paste at their ends, which

are exposed to air with a relative humidity lower than that within the capillary pores. The

water in the capillary pores, called the free water, is held by forces, which are stronger.

Although several causes may contribute to cracking, one probable cause is the

SDDOT's use of structural concrete mixes based on high cement content and a gap-

graded (one size coarse and fine) aggregate. With the current aggregate gradation, the

concrete mix would contain a high proportion of cement-water paste and high cement

content, which certainly contributes to higher shrinkage cracking in the decks. A review

2

of current literature indicates that concrete mixes that use a well-graded aggregate with a

large top size would result in reduced drying shrinkage cracking. The lower cement

content causes the lower drying shrinkage.

The previous research (Determination of Optimized Fly Ash Content in Bridge

Deck and Bridge Deck Overlay Concrete-Project SD 00-06) has shown that partial

replacement of cement with class F fly ash has slightly reduced the drying shrinkage

compared to the concrete without fly ash. The above-referred study had shown that the

replacement of cement with optimized quantity of fly ash has also improved other fresh

and hardened concrete properties. If the optimized gradations have significant

improvement in reducing the drying shrinkage, then the optimized mixes should be used

in field application.

1.2 Research Objective

To produce a new set of Class A45 Concrete mix design-using SDDOT aggregate

sources-that minimizes drying shrinkage by optimizing the coarse aggregate amount and

gradation, minimizes cement and water content, while maintaining or improving strength,

durability and workability.

1.3 Literature Review

A comprehensive literature review relevant to optimized aggregate gradation for

bridge deck concrete and as well as durability factors related to optimized aggregate

gradation was conducted which helped in the planning and conducting the research

project.

1.4 Blending of Aggregates

Sieve analysis was carried out for various sizes of aggregates on all three coarse

aggregates (Quartzite, Lime stone and Granite) to obtain an optimum blending for the

aggregates. The fineness moduli of the aggregates were evaluated as per ASTM C 136.

Four methods pertaining to obtaining optimized aggregate gradation: 0.45 power

chart, 8-18 method, USAF constructability chart method and Shilstone method, were

studied and used for this investigation. It was found that all the four methods complement

each other to a great extent.

3

It was found that the mix incorporating the 0.45 power chart gradations gave the

highest strength and better workability when compared to other power charts and the

control concrete. Due to its versatility and validity, the 0.45 power chart was used to

obtain the target gradation. Therefore the aim was to obtain an optimum blend whose

gradation would satisfy as nearly as possible the target gradation.

The combined gradation was obtained by blending two coarse aggregate sizes

37.5 mm (1.5 inch), 19 mm (¾ inch) and natural sand. A trial and error method was

adopted with different proportions of the three aggregates mentioned and tried to achieve

the best possible fit which will satisfy all the four methods mentioned. The optimum

proportions for the different type of aggregates, based on the aggregates supplied, are as

follows.

o Quartzite Aggregate : 27.5% (1.5 inch) : 37.5% (¾ inch) : 35% (sand)

o Limestone Aggregate : 30% (1.5 inch) : 35% (¾ inch) : 35% (sand)

o Granite Aggregate : 35% (1.5 inch) : 30% (¾ inch) : 35% (sand)

1.5 Trial Mixes

In order to obtain the concrete with the desired properties, A total of 15 trial

mixes were made with quartzite aggregate, 5 control mixes using the standard aggregate

gradation with 25 mm (1 inch) maximum size aggregate and medium sand, 5 optimized

aggregate proportions blending 37.5 mm and 19 mm (1.5 inch and ¾” inch) aggregates

and 5 optimized aggregate proportions with fly ash. Two cement contents (655 and 600

pcy), 4 water to cement ratios (0.40, 0.42, 0.43 and 0.45) and four different quantities of

air entraining agent were tried. Two different fly ash contents (25% and 20% by weight

of cement) were also tried.

All the mixes had satisfactory workability and finishability. The cast specimens

were tested for compressive strength at the age of 1, 3,7,14 and 28 days. Based on the

analysis of results obtained, the mix with 10% reduction in cement content and with a

blend of 37.5 mm (1.5inch), 19 mm (¾ inch) coarse aggregates and natural sand in

proportion of 27.5%, 37.5% and 35% respectively was chosen as the best mix having all

the properties required for the bridge deck. This mix was selected as the optimum mix

4

based on the results obtained for air content, workability, and compressive strength of the

concretes.

A similar procedure was adopted in the case of limestone and granite aggregates

and respective optimum mixes were obtained. In the case of both these aggregates also

the optimum mix was obtained with 10% reduction in cement content.

1.6 Evaluation of Selected Optimum Mixes

The optimized concrete mixes were developed to reduce the shrinkage cracking as

compared to SDDOT standard A-45 mixes for bridge deck concretes. Along with the

optimum mixes, optimum mixes with fly ash were also tested to compare the results.

Twenty percent of cement by weight was replaced with 25% by weight of fly ash. All the

relevant properties of these optimum concretes and their corresponding SDDOT standard

mixes were determined and compared. The properties evaluated were fresh concrete

properties (slump, air content, unit weight, initial and final setting times) and hardened

concrete properties (compressive strength, modulus of rupture, strength development

with age, drying shrinkage, creep and shrinkage, creep recovery, resistance to sulfate

attack, freeze-thaw durability, resistance to deicer scaling, and alkali-aggregate

reactivity).

1.7 Tests on Fresh Concrete

The freshly mixed concrete was tested for slump (ASTM C143), air content

(ASTM C231), fresh concrete unit weight (ASTM C138), and concrete temperature. The

workability and finishability of the optimum concretes with all three types of aggregates

(quartzite, limestone and granite) with and without water reducer were comparable to that

of the control concrete with all the aggregates. The air contents were in the desired range

of 6.25+1.25 for all the mixes. The fresh concrete unit weights were nearly the same for

all concretes, and had an average value of 2338.7 kg/m3 (146 lbs/cu.ft.) for quartzite

aggregate, 2354.7 kg/m3 (147 lbs/cu.ft) for limestone, 2332.7 kg/m3 (145 lbs/cu.ft) for

granite.

5

Initial and Final Setting Time

For all the three type of aggregates Initial setting time for the optimum mixes was

in the range of 240- 360 minutes, and final setting time was in the range of 272- 392

minutes. Optimum limestone concrete with fly ash had the highest initial setting time of

366 minutes and optimum granite concrete with fly ash had the highest final setting time

of 392 minutes. In using all three aggregates the control concrete had less initial and final

setting times compared to that of optimum mixes. The reason for the increased initial and

final setting time in the optimum mixes may be due to the reduction in cement content. In

the case of optimum mixes with fly ash, the increase in the setting times may be due to

reduction in cement content and addition of fly ash.

1.8 Tests on Hardened Concrete

Compressive Strength

The optimum concretes gave higher compressive strengths than their respective

control concretes in spite of 10% reduction in cement content for all the three aggregates

(limestone, quartzite and granite). This increase in the compressive strength was due to

the use of optimized aggregate gradation. Because of the optimized aggregate gradation

the concrete mix had become more dense and had increased compressive strength. In the

case of optimum mix with fly ash the increase in strength was due to the optimized

aggregate gradation and addition of fly ash. The presence of fly ash reduced the voids in

the concrete and resulted in higher compressive strengths.

Chloride Permeability

The chloride ion permeability values were in the range of 5000 - 7000 coulombs

for the control concretes. The optimum concretes had lesser permeability when compared

to that of the control concretes with all the aggregates (limestone, quartzite and granite).

Well graded aggregates and the addition of the fly ash to the concrete decreased the

chloride ion permeability of the concrete in the optimum mixes. There was about 50%

decrease in the permeability of concrete to the chloride ions in the optimum bridgedeck

concretes when compared to control mixes.

6

Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

In case of quartzite aggregate the mean expansions of control, optimum without

fly ash and optimum with fly ash concretes at the end of 15 weeks were 0.02792%,

0.02200% and 0.01950% respectively. In case of limestone the mean expansions of

control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly ash concretes at the end of 15

weeks were 0.02592%, 0.02325% and 0.02108% respectively. For granite the mean

expansions of control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly ash concretes at the

end of 15 weeks were 0.02833%, 0.02458% and 0.02233% respectively. In all the

aggregates it can be observed that the optimum mixes had less mean expansion when

compared to that of the control. It can be concluded that the optimized gradation has

increased the resistance of concrete to sulfate attack.

Freeze Thaw Resistance of Concrete

In case of quartzite after 300 cycles of freeze thaw, the durability factor for

optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were more than

control. Mean expansion was also less for the optimum mixes. The mean expansion was

very less for all the concretes and was in the range of 0.00675% - 0.01825%. The

accepted failure criterion is 0.1% expansion. The saturated surface dry absorption

coefficient for the optimum concrete with and without fly ash was less than the control

concrete.

For Limestone and granite aggregates also after 300 cycles of freeze thaw, the

durability factor for optimum mixes was more than that of control. The mean expansion

was very less for all the limestone concretes and was in the range of 0.00875% -

0.01975%. In case of Granite mixes mean expansion was in the range of 0.01350% -

0.02925%. In both the aggregates optimum mixes had less expansion than that of the

control. The saturated surface dry absorption coefficient for the optimum concrete with

and without fly ash was less than the control concrete for both aggregates.

7

Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals

The specimens were subjected to 50 cycles of freezing and thawing in the

presence of a deicing chemical (4% calcium chloride solution). The duration of the cycle

was 16hrs freezing and 8hrs of thawing. All the tests were conducted according to ASTM

C 672.

Quartzite and limestone control concretes and the optimum concrete without fly

ash had an ASTM rating of 1 (very light scaling) and the optimum with fly ash had

ASTM rating of 0 (no scaling). Whereas in case of granite the control concrete had

ASTM rating of 1 (very light scaling) and the optimum concrete without and with fly ash

had a rating of 0 (no scaling).

Alkali Aggregate Reactivity of Concrete

With quartzite aggregates control concrete had a percentage expansion of

0.20833%, the optimum concrete without fly ash had an expansion of 0.18400%, and

optimum concrete with fly ash had a mean expansion of 0.03775%, at the end of 14 days.

In the case of limestone the optimum concrete without fly ash had an expansion of

0.11650%, and final mix optimum concrete with fly ash had a mean expansion of

0.06975%, at the end of 14 days. Whereas control concrete had an expansion of

0.13625%,

In the case of granite aggregate the control concrete had a percentage expansion

of 0.17613%, the optimum concrete without fly ash had an expansion of 0.13450%, and

the optimum concrete with fly ash had a mean expansion of 0.04625%.

Optimum mixes with all these aggregates showed lesser mean expansion when

compared to that of the control concrete.

Drying Shrinkage

At the end of 90 days, the control concrete with quartzite aggregate had the

highest unit shrinkage strain of 447 x 10-6, whereas the optimum concrete without fly ash

had 378 x 10-6, and optimum concrete with fly ash had 328 x 10-6.

In case of limestone aggregate the control concrete had the highest unit shrinkage

strain when compared to the optimum concretes. There were reductions of 16% and 25%

in the shrinkage deformations for final optimum limestone concrete without fly ash and

8

final optimum limestone concrete with fly ash respectively when compared to that of the

control concrete, at the end of 60 days.

For granite aggregate at the end of 60 days, the control concrete had the highest

unit shrinkage strain of 397 x 10-6, optimum concrete without fly ash had 335 x 10-6, and

optimum concrete with fly ash had 293 x 10-6.

Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete

The total unit creep strains for control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash

and optimum concrete with fly ash were 465 x 10-6, 378 x 10-6 and 343 x 10-6

respectively at the end of 60 days for quartzite aggregate. The initial unit elastic strain

recovery for control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete

with fly ash were 133 x 10-6, 142 x 10-6 and 143 x 10-6 respectively.

For limestone aggregate the total unit creep strains for control concrete, optimum

concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 465 x 10-6, 378 x 10-6

and 358 x 10-6 respectively at the end of 60 days. The initial unit elastic strain recovery

for control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly

ash were 127 x 10-6, 137 x 10-6 and 140 x 10-6 respectively.

In case of granite aggregate the total unit creep strains for control concrete,

optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 480 x 10-6,

387 x 10-6 and 358 x 10-6 respectively at the end of 60 days. The initial unit elastic strain

recovery for control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete

with fly ash were 130 x 10-6, 139 x 10-6 and 143 x 10-6 respectively.

Temperature monitoring with I-button

Six series of mixes (four with limestone aggregate, one series with granite

aggregate and one with quartzite aggregate) were monitored for temperature using

I-button device. Temperature was monitored for a period of 7 days with an interval of 5

minutes between the readings.

In all the series of mixes control showed more increase in temperature than the

optimum mixes except in the first series, where in the optimum with fly ash mix had

higher increase in temperature. Reason for this was the use of superplasticizer. The

9

reduction in the increase of temperature due to the hydration process in the optimum

mixes was due to the reduction in cement content in these mixes.

1.9 Conclusions

Mixture Proportioning

• A comprehensive literature review relevant to optimized aggregate gradation and

its effect on strength and durability aspects of concrete was done, which helped in

planning and conducting this research project.

• Four methods pertaining to obtaining optimized aggregate gradation: 0.45 power

chart, 8-18 method, USAF constructability chart method and Shilstone method,

were studied and used for this investigation. It was found that all the four methods

complement each other to a great extent.

• Historically, the 0.45 power chart was used to develop uniform gradations for

asphalt mix designs. For the first time anywhere in the world a detailed

investigation was carried out to determine the validity of the 0.45 power chart and

its applicability to concrete mix designs. Because of the intermediate particles, the

concrete mix incorporating the 0.45 power chart gradations gave the best

workable mix with the maximum strength.

• Due to its versatility and validity, the 0.45 power chart was used to obtain the

target gradation. Therefore the aim was to obtain an optimum blend whose


• For practical considerations, in order to make it easier for aggregate suppliers,

only two standard sizes, 37.5 mm and 19 mm (1.5 inch and ¾ inch maximum

sizes), of coarse aggregates were selected for blending with medium sand (FM =

2.84) to satisfy the target gradation. Therefore it was realized that an exact fitting

with the 0.45 power chart would not be always possible to achieve. Still an almost

close fit with the 0.45 power chart’s target gradation was obtained for both

quartzite and limestone aggregates. The combined optimized aggregate gradation

that satisfied the 0.45 power chart was then compared with the Shilstone

gradations, USAF constructability chart and the 8-18 method for compatibility. It

was found that the obtained gradation was compatible with all the 4 methods.

10

• Since the supplied coarse granite aggregates were crushed aggregates and there

was a greater variation in the shape and texture of the aggregates, it was more

difficult to get the exact fit with the 0.45 power chart and compatible with

Shilstone method, USAF and 8-18 methods.

• By trial and error the following proportions were chosen for each aggregate,

based on the aggregates supplied, that when blended gave the optimized aggregate

gradation.




• After optimizing the aggregate gradation the cement content in the concrete mix

was optimized (to reduce shrinkage cracks in concrete) without compromising the

strength, durability and workability requirements. Different percentage reductions

of cement content (8.4%, 10% and 15%) were tried extensively, and tested for

strength and workability characteristics. It was found that concrete mixes made

with 10% reduction in cement content (compared to the corresponding control

concrete) gave the optimum results. Even though there was a 10% reduction in

cement content, a corresponding strength reduction was not observed because of

the use of optimized aggregate gradation.

• The influence of different percentages of cement content (8.4% & 10% for

quartzite aggregate concretes, 10 & 15% for limestone aggregate concretes and

10% for granite aggregate) on the durability characteristics of concretes were also

determined and are also reported. Similarity of the durability test results was

observed in case of quartzite aggregate where the two sets of mixes were done

with different percentages (8.4 % and 10%) of cement reduction Similarity of

durability test results was not observed for concretes made with limestone

aggregates with different percentages reduction in cement content (10% & 15%).

• It was found from trial mixes that by using well-graded aggregates the cement

content could be reduced to a maximum of 10% without compromising the

strength, durability and workability of concrete.

11

Workability, Finishability and Setting times (Fresh Concrete Properties)

All the three mixes, control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly ash

were easily workable, even though the optimum mixes had a reduction of 10.0% in the

cement content with all three aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite).

The finishability for control and optimum mixes without fly ash was good. The

finishability of the optimum mixes with fly ash was very good because of more paste

content. Appropriate amount of medium range waster reducer and air entraining agent

were added to meet the SDDOT requirements of slump and the air content.

Optimum concretes without and with fly ash with all the three aggregates

(quartzite, limestone and granite) had an increase of 12% to 19% in initial setting time

when compared to the control concrete. Whereas this increase was about 21% to 70% in

final setting for optimum concretes without and with fly ash for all the three aggregates

(quartzite, limestone and granite).

Compressive Strength and Modulus of Rupture (Flexural Strength)

At the age of 28-days optimum concretes (with quartzite, limestone and granite)

without fly ash and with fly ash had more compressive strength than their respective

control concrete. The increase in strength was in the range of 2.5% to 24%. The same

trend was observed for all the ages upto 90 days.

At the age of 28-days optimum concretes (with quartzite, limestone and granite)

without fly ash and with fly ash had more flexural strength than their respective control

concrete. The increase in strength was in the range of 2.0% to 18%.

Durability Related Properties

In the case of sulfate resistance of concrete test (ASTM C 1012) it was found that

at the end of 15 weeks in all three types of aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite)

the optimum concretes without and with fly ash had less mean expansion than that of the

control concrete. Reduction in the mean expansion for optimum concretes in all the three

aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite) without fly ash was in the range of 10% to

18%, whereas for the optimum concretes with fly ash this reduction was in the range of

19% to 29% at the end of 15 weeks.

12

In the case of drying shrinkage test (ASTM C 157) a reduction in the range of

15% to 16% in shrinkage deformations of optimum concretes without fly ash in all three

aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite) was observed when compared to control

concrete at the end of 60 days. This reduction was in the range of 25% to 27% in the case

of optimum concretes with fly ash at the end of 60 days.

It was observed that in the alkali aggregate reactivity test (ASTM C 1260) there

was a reduction of 10% to 24% in the mean expansion of the optimum concretes without

fly ash in all three aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite) at the end of 14 days. In

the case of optimum concretes with fly ash this reduction was in the range of 49% to 85%

at the end of 14 days.

The creep and shrinkage test (ASTM C 512) indicated that at the end of 60 days

of sustained loading, there was a reduction of 19% to 26% in the total unit creep strains

for optimum mixes without and with fly ash in all three aggregates (quartzite, limestone

and granite) when compared to the control concretes. The unit creep recovery for 10 days

upon unloading was in the range of 15% to 17% for control concretes and 20% to 23%

for optimum concretes without fly ash and with fly ash for all three aggregates (quartzite,

limestone and granite).

In the case of the Rapid Chloride permeability test (ASTM C 1202) for concretes

with all three aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite) the chloride permeability was

rated high for both control and optimum concretes without fly ash and this rating was

moderate for optimum concrete with fly ash at 56 days. At 90 days, in concretes with all

three aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite) the chloride permeability was rated

high for both control and optimum concretes without fly ash. For optimum concrete with

fly ash the rating was low for quartzite and moderate for limestone and granite concretes.

In the Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals test (ASTM C 672)

all control concretes (quartzite, limestone and granite) had very light scaling at the end of

50 cycles, whereas all the optimum concretes (quartzite, limestone and granite) without

fly ash and with fly ash showed good resistance to the deicer scaling, even when the

cement content was reduced by 10 percent.

In the Freeze thaw resistance of concrete test (ASTM C 666) after 300 cycles of

freeze thaw all the optimum concretes (quartzite, limestone and granite) without fly ash

13

and with fly ash had higher durability factors and less mean expansions than control

concretes. In all concretes (quartzite, limestone and granite) control, optimum without

and with fly ash had the durability factors in the range of 88 – 91 indicating very good

freeze thaw resistance (ASTM C 494 sets the minimum durability factor at 80%).

Concrete Plastic Shrinkage Reduction Potential

Tests were conducted to determine the plastic shrinkage cracking potential of

concrete mixes (control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly ash) with all

aggregates. All the mixes did not crack. When the temperature is very high and the wind

velocity is much higher than that used in the laboratory 22 km/hr (15 miles/hr) as occurs

sometimes in the field, then there may be plastic shrinkage cracking. These conditions

could not be simulated in the lab.

Concrete Temperature Monitoring

It was found that in the optimum mixes without fly ash the reduction in the

increase of temperature due to the hydration process was proportional to reduction in the

cement content. The reason for the lesser increase in temperature in optimum mix with

fly ash may be due to higher percentage reduction in cement and the use of fly ash. This

reduction in cement content and use of fly ash might have reduced the heat of hydration,

which in turn reduced the temperature of concrete. There was a good correlation between

the setting time and the temperature of concrete. It was found that optimum mixes had

higher setting times when compared to controls, due to less cement content. Because of

less cement content in optimum mixes, temperature increase was less and resulted in

higher setting times. I-button proved to be an effective tool for monitoring continuously

the exact temperature variation in the concrete.

1.10 Recommendations

It is recommended that 37.5 mm (1.5 in) maximum size aggregate with the

recommended target gradation, as determined by the 0.45 power chart, for the combined

coarse and fine aggregates with a tolerance of + 3 should be used for all the aggregates (

quartzite, limestone and granite). The target gradation is given below:

14

Target gradation with allowable tolerance

1.51

3/41/23/8

No. 4No. 8No. 16No. 30No. 50No. 100

118

39292116

1008374

5461

13-198-145-11

51-5736-4226-3218-24

97-10080-8671-7758-64

Sieve Size (in)

Target Gradation

Allowable Limits (+ or - 3 tolerance)

2 Because of the possible variation in the aggregate shape, size and the gradation

even from the same supplier, it is recommended that individual sieve analysis for

37.5 mm (1.5 in) and 19 mm (¾ in) and medium sand should be done. These

aggregates should be blended in suitable proportions by trial and error to obtain

the proposed target gradation. Compatibility of the obtained combined gradation

should be checked with Shilstone method, USAF constructability chart and 8-18

method. If necessary some field adjustments can be made to ensure compatibility

with Shilstone, USAF constructability chart and 8-18 method. It should be noted

that it may not be always possible with a particular aggregates to satisfy all the

four methods.

3 The best possible blend with the available coarse aggregate sizes 37.5 mm (1.5 in)

and 19 mm (¾ in) and medium sand that matched the target gradation was

obtained for all the three supplied aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite)

from the South Dakota Aggregate suppliers ( the sieve analysis of the supplied

aggregates are included in the report). The combined gradations thus obtained by

blending for all the three aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite) are given

below:

15

Combined gradations for the aggregates (Quartzite, limestone and granite)

Quartzite Limestone Granite1.5 100 99 100 1001 83 83 88 99

3/4 74 74 75 911/2 61 66 58 783/8 54 52 48 60

No. 4 39 37 36 37No. 8 29 33 32 32

No. 16 21 26 25 25No. 30 16 14 16 16No. 50 11 4 8 7No. 100 8 1 2 2

Combined Gradation Sieve Size (in) Target Gradation

4. A method proposed in the investigation can be used to arrive at the percentages of

the three aggregates to be combined. For the three aggregates (quartzite,

limestone and granite) and medium sand obtained from the South Dakota

aggregate suppliers, the mixture proportions obtained in this investigation are

given below:

Recommended Mixture Proportions for the Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate

IngredientVolume

Proportions (ft3)

Volume Proportions

(ft3)Cement 614.00 pcy 3.10 492.00 pcy 2.49Fly Ash 0.00 pcy 0.00 154.00 pcy 0.99Coarse Aggregate 1.5" 813.00 pcy 4.95 815.00 pcy 4.97

1.0" 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.003/4" 1108.00 pcy 6.75 1110.00 pcy 6.76

Fine Aggregate 1033.00 pcy 6.32 1036.00 pcy 6.34Water 256.00 pcy 4.10 231.00 pcy 3.70Air 6.50 % 1.76 6.50 % 1.76Total 27.00 27.00W/C RatioW/CM Ratio

OQB - Optimuum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly ash)OQFB -

pcy -

The following values of specific gravities were used for the calculation of volume proportions:Cement - 3.17; Fly Ash - 2.50; Coarse Aggregate - 2.63; Fine Aggregate - 2.62

Optimuum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly ash)

Weight Proportions Weight

Proportions

0.42 0.47

OQB OQFB

0.360.42

pounds per cubic yard

16

Recommended Mixture Proportions for the Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

IngredientVolume

Proportions (ft3)

Volume Proportions


1.0" 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.003/4" 1043.00 pcy 6.24 1045.00 pcy 6.25


OLB - OLFB -

pcy -

OLB OLFB

0.360.42


Optimuum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly ash)Optimuum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly ash)pounds per cubic yard


Proportions

0.42 0.47

Recommended Mixture Proportions for the Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate

IngredientVolume

Proportions (ft3)

Volume Proportions


1.0" 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.003/4" 882.00 pcy 5.42 885.00 pcy 5.43


OGB - OGFB -

pcy -

OGB OGFB

0.360.42


Optimuum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly ash)Optimuum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly ash)pounds per cubic yard


Proportions

0.42 0.47

Notes for all Tables

SI unit conversion Factors: 1pcy = 0.593 kg/m3, 1 ft3 = 0.028 m3, 1 in = 25.4 mm

1. Appropriate quantity of air entraining agent should be used to obtain the required air content.

2. Whenever required, an appropriate quantity of water reducing agent (either mid

range or high range) should be used to achieve the specified slump.

17

5. Based on a very comprehensive and extensive laboratory investigation, it is

recommended that the optimum graded mixture proportions with class F fly ash

should be specified for bridge deck concrete. Compared to plain deck concrete,

the benefits of using fly ash deck concrete as demonstrated in this project, are

substantial reduction in the chloride ion penetrability (a “low” value as per ASTM

C 1202), reduced corrosion potential, higher modulus concrete, reduced plastic

shrinkage, reduced drying shrinkage, reduced early temperature rise due to the

hydration activity, less micro-cracking, higher durability, better workability and

good finishability. Additional benefits are reduced creep, better bond, higher

resistance to sulfate attack, less expansion due to alkali-aggregate reaction, less

deicer scaling and higher freeze thaw durability factor. It is recommended that

20% of the cement by weight should be replaced with 25% by weight of Class F

fly ash.

6. In cases where the water to cementitious ratios are very low (in the range of 0.28

to 0.32) and mineral admixture such as fly ash is used, high range water reducers

are recommended. In cases where w/c ratio is around 0.40, mid range water

reducers may be sufficient. Addition of large quantities of mid range water

reducers lowers the rate of strength gain.

7. When optimized aggregate concretes are used, it is recommended that the

following quality control tests should be conducted in the field using ASTM test

procedures for the fresh concrete: slump, unit weight, air content and the concrete

temperature. The ambient temperature, humidity and the wind velocity should be

recorded during the bridge deck concrete placement. The compressive strength

and static modulus tests should be conducted on the field samples collected and

cured according to the ASTM standard procedures at 28 days.

18

CHAPTER 2.0

PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVE

2.1 Problem Description

Although designers are confident of their bridge deck design, the materials that

are used for construction may eventually cause problems. Bridge decks should resist

sulfate attack, be resistant to alkali-silica reactivity (ASR), have minimal drying and/or

shrinkage cracking, and be nearly impermeable. If a concrete appropriately addresses

each of these properties then it is likely that bridge deck maintenance will be reduced and

its life would be increased. There are normally two types of shrinkage cracks, (plastic

shrinkage and drying shrinkage cracks) which occur in bridge decks and pavements.

Plastic shrinkage is defined as the volume reduction that occurs before the

concrete hardens. Plastic shrinkage cracks are random cracks that sometimes occur in the

exposed surface of fresh concrete during or within the first few hours after the concrete

has been placed, while the concrete is still plastic and before attaining any significant

strength. Such cracks are caused by the evaporation of surface water, and consequent

drying and shrinking of the exposed surface of the plastic concrete. The major cause of

plastic shrinkage cracking is an excessively rapid evaporation of water from the concrete

surface. The occurrence of plastic shrinkage cracks is sporadic. Even when the same

materials, proportions and methods of mixing, placing, finishing, and curing are used, the

cracks may occur on one day, but not the next. This is due to changes in weather

conditions that cause variations in the rate of evaporation.

Drying shrinkage is defined as the time dependent volume reduction due to loss of

water at constant relative humidity and temperature. The loss of moisture from concrete

after it hardens, and hence, drying shrinkage, is inevitable unless the concrete is

submerged in water or is in an environment with 100% Relative Humidity (RH). The

driving force for drying shrinkage is evaporation of water from capillary pores in

hydrated cement paste at their ends, which are exposed to air with a relative humidity

19

lower than that within the capillary pores. The water in the capillary pores, called the free

water, is held by forces, which are stronger.

In South Dakota, new bridge decks increasingly show early transverse cracking.

This restrained shrinkage cracking is easily identifiable in newly constructed bridge

decks, when the forms are removed. These cracks occur frequently over the length of the

deck at approximately 1.37 m to 1.68 m (4.5 to 5.5 feet) intervals. This cracking is

undesirable because it allows the ingress of water and chlorides that further damage the

structure. Although several causes may contribute to cracking, one probable cause is the

Department's use of structural concrete mixes based on high cement content and a gap-

graded (one size coarse and fine) aggregate. With the current aggregate gradation, the

concrete mix would contain a high proportion of cement-water paste and high cement

content, which certainly contributes to higher shrinkage cracking in the decks. A review

of current literature indicates that concrete mixes that use a well-graded aggregate with a

large top size would result in reduced drying shrinkage cracking. The lower cement

content causes the lower drying shrinkage. Review of literature has shown that it is

certainly possible to lower the cement paste content by a more well graded aggregate

concrete.

Although other studies using different aggregate sources have indicated that well

graded aggregate would require less cement paste, trial batches of structural concrete

with South Dakota aggregates should be prepared and tested to optimize the aggregate

gradation for minimum cement paste content. The three types of aggregates currently

used in South Dakota, namely quartzite, limestone, and granite should be tested

individually for the optimization. There are also three types of sand (Fine, Medium and

Coarse sand) available in South Dakota. All three types must be included in the

optimization study.

The previous research (Determination of Optimized Fly Ash Content in Bridge

Deck and Bridge Deck Overlay Concrete-Project SD 00-06) has shown that partial

replacement of cement with class F fly ash has slightly reduced the drying shrinkage

compared to the concrete without fly ash. Therefore the testing should be conducted to

determine the effect of partial replacement of cement with Class F Fly ash. The above-

referred study had shown that the replacement of cement with optimized quantity of fly

20

ash has also improved other fresh and hardened concrete properties. Structural concretes

with the optimized aggregate gradation should be also compared to SDDOT's normal

structural concrete to assess the improvement of properties, particularly the drying

shrinkage, permeability, freeze thaw, durability, compressive strength and unit weight.

If the optimized gradations have significant improvement in reducing the drying

shrinkage, then the optimized mixes should be used in field application. It is proposed to

use the concrete with the optimized aggregate in the construction of bridge decks . These

newly constructed bridge decks would be monitored and evaluated. The evaluation would

consist of detailed mapping of the length, width, and area of cracking in the bridge decks

and comparing them with the performance of previously constructed bridges with the

SDDOT normal structural concrete.

2.2 Research Objective

1. To produce a new set of Class A45 Concrete mix designs-using SDDOT

aggregate sources-that minimize drying shrinkage by optimizing the coarse aggregate

amount and gradation, and minimize cement and water content, while maintaining or

improving strength, durability and workability.

2.3 Materials

2.3.1 Cement

Type I/II normal Portland cement satisfying the requirement of ASTM C150 was

used for all mixes. The cement was supplied by Dacotah cement.

2.3.2 Coarse Aggregate

The coarse aggregate used was crushed quartzite, limestone and granite. Three

different sizes of the coarse aggregate were used; they were 37.5 mm (1.5 inch), 25 mm

(1 inch) and 19 mm (¾ inch) maximum size, which had a water absorption coefficient of

0.5%. The quartzite and granite aggregates were supplied by SDDOT, Sioux Falls,

limestone aggregate obtained from Hills Material, Rapid City.

21

2.3.3 Fine Aggregate

The fine aggregate used for all the mixes made with limestone was natural sand

with a water absorption coefficient of 1.6%. It was obtained from Hill City Materials,

Rapid City, South Dakota. The fine aggregate used for all the mixes made with quartzite

was natural sand obtained from SDDOT, Sioux Falls, South Dakota with a water

absorption coefficient of 1.16%. Both the coarse and the fine aggregates were according

to the grading requirements of ASTM C 33.

2.3.4 Water

The water used was tap water from the Rapid City Municipal water supply

system.

2.3.5 Admixtures

The mineral admixtures used were:

• Fly Ash (Class F) supplied by ISG Resources Inc, Underwood, North Dakota.

The chemical admixtures used were:

• Standard Air Entraining Agent (AEA) Daravair supplied by Grace

Construction Products, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and

• High Range Water Reducer (HRWR) Daracem – 50 supplied by Grace

Construction Products, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

2.4 Tests on Concrete

2.4.1 Tests on fresh concrete The freshly mixed concrete was tested for slump (ASTM C 143), air content

(ASTM C 231), fresh concrete unit weight (ASTM C 138), and concrete temperature

(ASTM C 1064).

22

2.4.2 Tests on hardened concrete

2.4.2.1 Compressive strength and static modulus Cylinders were tested for static modulus (ASTM C 469) prior to compressive

strength (ASTM C 39) at 28 days. The size of the cylinders used was 100 mm x 200 mm

(4in. x 8 inches.)

2.4.2.2 Modulus of Rupture Test

The beams were tested at 28 days for the flexural strength in accordance with

the ASTM C 78, which was a load-control test. The beams were tested over a simply

supported span of 300 mm (12 inches) and third point loading was applied to the beams.

The size of the beam used was 100 mm x 100 mm x 350 mm (4 x 4 x 14 inches).

2.4.3 Durability Tests on Concrete

The following tests were done for all the mixes:

1. Determination of initial and final setting time ASTM C 403

2. Standard Test Method for Scaling Resistance of Concrete Surfaces Exposed to

Deicing Chemicals ASTM C 672

3. Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hydraulic-Cement Mortars Exposed

to a Sulfate Solution ASTM C 1012

4. Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to Resist

Chloride Ion Penetration ASTM C 1202

5. Standard test method for potential alkali reactivity of aggregates ASTM C 1260

2.4.3.1 Determination of Initial and Final Setting Time (ASTM C 403)

Scope This test method covers the determination of the time of setting of concrete, with

slump greater than zero, by means of penetration resistance measurements on mortar

sieved from the concrete mixture.

23

Summary of test method A mortar sample was obtained by sieving the representative sample of fresh

concrete through U.S sieve No.4 (4.75 mm sieve) to remove the coarse aggregates. The

mortar was placed in the container of size 152.4 x 762 x 152.4 mm (6 x 30 x 6 inches)

and stored at the specified ambient temperature. At regular time intervals, the resistance

of the mortar to penetration by standard needles was measured. Plots of penetration

resistance versus elapsed time were drawn, for each plot the initial and final setting times

were determined when the penetration resistance equaled 3.5 MPa (500 psi) and 28 MPa

(4000 psi) respectively.

Conditioning The specimens were stored under laboratory conditions, i.e. the storage

temperature was within the range of 20 to 250C (68 to 770F).

Procedure Just prior to the penetration test, bleed water from the surface of the mortar

specimens was removed by means of a pipette. A needle of appropriate size, depending

upon the degree of setting of the mortar, in the penetration resistance apparatus was

inserted and the bearing surface of the needle was brought into contact with the mortar

surface. A vertical force was applied gradually and uniformly downward on the apparatus

till the needle penetrated the mortar to a depth of 25.4 +/- 1.6 mm (1+/- 1/16 in.) as

indicated by the scribe mark in the needle. The time required to penetrate to the 25.4 mm

(1 in.) depth was maintained at 10 + 2 seconds. The force required to produce a

penetration of 25.4 mm (1 in.) and the time of application, measured as the elapsed time

after initial contact of cement and water were recorded. The penetration resistances were

calculated by dividing the recorded force by the bearing area of the needle.

2.4.3.2 Scaling Resistance of Concrete Surfaces Exposed to Deicing

Chemicals (ASTM C 672)

Scope

This test method covers the determination of the resistance to scaling of a

24

Concrete surface exposed to freezing and thawing cycles in the presence of deicing

chemicals.

Test Specimens The specimens used for this test were two nos. of 355.6 x 152.4 x 152.4 mm (14 x

6 x 6 in.) concrete beams. These beams conformed to ASTM specification of minimum

surface area of 46451.5 mm2 (72 in2) and minimum depth of 76.2 mm (3 in.)

Curing and Storage

Immediately after demolding, the specimens were kept in the moist curing room

for 14 days. After the completion of the moist curing period the beams were air cured for

14 days in the laboratory.

Procedure Immediately after the specified curing period the flat surface of the specimen was

covered with ¼ in of calcium chloride solution having a concentration such that 100 mL

of solution contained 4 g of anhydrous calcium chloride. Then the specimen was

subjected to freezing and thawing cycles. The time duration for the one cycle was a

freezing cycle of 18 hr and 6 hr for the thawing cycle. The test was done for 50 cycles.

Then the scaling on the horizontal surface was rated according to ASTM rating system.

2.4.3.3 Length Change of Mortar Bars Exposed to Sulfate Solution (ASTM

C 1012)

Scope This test method covers the determination of length change of mortar bars

immersed in sodium sulfate solution (PH 7.2) and the compressive strength of concrete

cubes exposed to sulfate solution.

Test specimens The test specimens used for this test were six 25.4 x 25.4 x 285.7mm

(1x1x11.25in.) mortar bars and twenty-one 50.8 mm (2 in.) cubes of concrete. All the six

mortar bars and the twenty one cubes were kept in the sodium sulfate solution after the

concrete cubes attained compressive strength of 20.68 ± 1 MPa (3000 ± 150 psi).

25

Curing and Storage

After molding, the molds were covered and placed in the curing room for twenty-

four hours and then demolded. After demolding and prior to the test they were placed in

saturated limewater.

Procedure Immediately after demolding the cube specimens were tested for their

compressive strength. If the compressive strength of 20.68 ± 1 MPa (3000 ± 150 psi) was

achieved then the cubes were placed in the sodium sulfate solution, which had a PH of

7.2. If the compressive strength of 20.68 ± 1 MPa (3000 ± 150 psi) was not achieved then

the bars and the cubes were kept in the saturated limewater till they attained the desired

strength. Immediately after achieving the desired strength the length of the mortar bars

was recorded and then they were immersed in the sodium sulfate solution. At 1,2,3,4,8,13

and 15 weeks after the bars were placed in the sulfate solution the length comparator

readings were taken in accordance with ASTM C 490. The cubes were tested for their

compressive strength according to ASTM C 109.

Formulae used for Calculations

Length change in Percent Lc =((l2-l1)/Lg) x 100

Lc = length change of the test specimen after C cycles of freezing and thawing, %,

l1 = length comparator reading at 0 cycles,

l2 = length comparator reading after C cycles,

Lg = the effective gage length between the innermost ends of the gage studs.

2.4.3.4 Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCPT) (ASTM C 1202)

Scope This test determines the electrical conductance of concrete to provide a rapid

indication of its resistance to the penetration of chloride ions.

26

Test Specimens The 100 mm x 200 mm (4 in. x 8 in.) cylinders were cut to a thickness of 50 mm

(2 in.) from the top (finished) surface by using a concrete saw (the saw used was a

diamond saw). This slice was used as the test specimen.

Conditioning • A liter or more of tap water was boiled vigorously and then allowed to cool to the

room temperature in a sealable container.

• The specimens were allowed to surface dry in air for one hour. A sufficient amount of

rapid setting epoxy was mixed in a plastic container. This epoxy was then coated on

the circumferential sides of the specimens using a brush.

• The specimens were then placed in the vacuum dessicator such that both ends of each

specimen were exposed. The edges of the lid were cleaned and lightly oiled. The lid

was then placed on the dessicator and the vacuum pump was turned on. The vacuum

was maintained at -0.8 BAR (-13 psi) for 3 hours.

• After three hours, the separatory funnel was filled with deaerated water. With the

vacuum pump still running, the water stopcock was opened and sufficient water was

let into the dessicator to completely submerge the specimens. The stopcock was then

closed and the vacuum pump was run for one additional hour.

• At the end of the additional hour the vacuum pump was turned off and the vacuum

line stopcock was opened to let in the air and the specimens were allowed to soak

under water for 18+2 hours.

Test Procedure • The specimens were removed from the vacuum dessicator and were prevented

from drying. Then the inside surface of the rubber gaskets were coated with a cell

sealant. The sealant used was SILICONE.

• One of the gaskets was placed in the space above the mesh. Then the specimen

was pushed into the gasket. The spacer was placed over the specimen and the

other gasket was positioned at the end of the specimen. Finally, the second half of

the cell was positioned over the gasket and was fixed with the help of bolts with

washers and nuts.

27

• The specimen was positioned in the measuring cell containing a fluid reservoir on

each end of the specimen. One reservoir was filled with 3% sodium chloride

(NaCl) solution and the other with 0.3 N sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution. The

specimen was positioned such that the finished surface of the specimen was

facing the NaCl reservoir and the cut surface facing the NaOH reservoir. The

reservoir containing NaCl is connected to the negative terminal; the NaOH

reservoir is connected to the positive terminal of the power supply.

• The lead wires were attached to cell electrical connectors and the cells were

connected to the power supply. The power supply used was PROOVE IT (PR-

1050 bought from Germann Instruments, Inc.). The power supply was turned on

and the voltage was set to 60 VDC. The computer program used (PR-1040

Software supplied by Germann Instruments) recorded the current (in mA) and

temperature (in oC) values every 5 minutes.

• The test was terminated after six hours. The specimen was removed and the cells

were rinsed thoroughly in tap water and the residual sealant was stripped out and

discarded. The table below shows the classification of the chloride ion

permeability.

Charge Passed in Coulombs Chloride Ion Permeability

> 4000

2000 – 4000

1000 – 2000

100 – 1000

< 100

High

Moderate

Low

Very Low

Negligible

2.4.3.5 Standard test method for potential alkali reactivity of aggregates (ASTM C 1260)

Scope This test method provides a means for accelerated detection of the potentially

deleterious internal expansion of the mortar bars due to alkali-silica reaction within 16

28

days. It is useful for aggregates that react slowly or produce expansion late in the

reaction.

Test specimens Prisms of size 25.4 x 25.4 x 285 mm (1 x 1 x 11.25 inches) having a 250 mm (10

in) gage length were used for AAR testing. Four specimens were done for each mix and

the average percent expansion was reported. Each specimen was inserted with two

stainless steel gage studs to facilitate the measurement of percent expansion of the alkali-

aggregate mortar bars.

Procedure Mortar sample was obtained by sieving the representative sample of fresh

concrete through U.S sieve No.4 (4.75 mm sieve) to remove the coarse aggregates. A thin

layer of oil was smeared to the inner faces of the prisms. Mortar was filled into the prisms

in two layers with each layer being compacted using a rubber tamper. The mortar was

tamped into the corners, around the gage studs, and along the surfaces of the mold until a

homogenous specimen was obtained. The top layer was smoothened with a few strokes of

trowel. The specimens (4 numbers for each mix) were kept in the moist room

immediately after the molds were filled with mortar. The specimens were allowed to

remain in the molds (in the moist curing room) for 24 hours and then removed. These

specimens were transferred into plastic container (resistant to heat and inert to alkali

made by Rubbermaid) and were completely immersed in tap water for 24 hours. Small

Plexi-glass pieces were used as supports in order to provide maximum access around the

specimens for the medium (water/NaOH) in the container. The whole container was

placed in a convection oven with temperature maintained at 80 + 2.00 C (176 + 3.60 F) for

24 hours. The specimens were then carefully removed from the water one at a time and

their surfaces were dried using a towel. Immediately the length of the mortar bar was

measured using a length comparator. This was recorded as the “zero reading”. The mortar

bars were transferred into a container with 1N NaOH solution. Care was taken such that

the specimens were placed on supports, fully immersed and the container sealed

completely. These containers were then returned into the convection oven with

29

temperature maintained at 80 + 2.00 C (176 + 3.60 F). Subsequent readings were taken at

3, 7, 11 and 14 days (from zero day).

Interpretation of test results: Expansion limits for accelerated test method are as follows:

If the aggregates show expansion of

Less than 0.10% - innocuous

Between 0.10% to 0.20% - inconclusive

Greater than 0.20% - deleterious

When excessive expansion occurs, it is strongly recommended that the

supplementary information be developed to confirm that the expansion is actually due to

alkali silica reactivity. Sources of such supplementary information include (1)

petrographic examination of the aggregate (ASTM C295) to determine if known reactive

constituents are present, and (2) examination of the specimens after tests to identify the

products of alkali-silica reactivity (ASTM C 856).

2.4.3.6 Drying Shrinkage of Concrete (ASTM C 157)

This test was done in accordance with ASTM C 157, which is a standard test

method for Length change of hardened concrete.

Scope This test method covers determination of the length changes of hardened

hydraulic-cement mortar and concrete due to causes other than externally applied forces

and temperature changes. The term "length change," as used here, is defined as an

increase or decrease in a linear dimension of a test specimen, which has been caused to

change by any factor other than externally, applied forces and temperature changes.

Test Specimens Drying shrinkage deformations were measured on 76 x 76 x 286 mm (3 inch

square section and 11.5 inch long) prisms. Three specimens were cast in mild steel molds

30

for each mix and consolidated on a table vibrator. Each specimen was cast with two

stainless steel inserts called as gauge studs to facilitate shrinkage measurements.

Curing and Storing The specimens were de-molded after 24 hrs and transferred immediately to the

curing tank filled with lime-saturated water at room temperature. The specimens were

water cured up to an age of 28 days, and then stored in a temperature and humidity

controlled room at a temperature of 21+30 C (70+50 F) and a relative humidity of 50

percent.

Procedure Upon removal of the specimens from the molds, the specimens were placed in

lime-saturated water. After 30 minutes the specimens were removed from water one at a

time, wiped with a damp cloth, and immediately a comparator reading was taken. This

reading is called as the initial comparator reading. Immediately after this the specimens

were placed into the lime-saturated water for a period of 28 days. After 28 days of curing

period, readings were taken at every 4 hrs for the first day, every 8 hrs for the second and

third day and every day for the first week. Further readings were taken after every week

for the first month and up to an age of 60 days after the curing period.

Shrinkage measurements were obtained using a dial gage comparator with

readings measured to an accuracy of 0.0013 mm (0.00005 in.). An invar bar was used for

calibration during testing.

2.4.3.7 Creep of Concrete in Compression (ASTM C 512)

Scope This test method covers the determination of the creep of molded concrete

cylinders subjected to sustained longitudinal compressive load. This test method is

limited to concrete in which the maximum aggregate size does not exceed 50 mm (2 in.).

Test Specimens

The specimens used in this test were vertically cast concrete cylinders. Cylinders

were cast in accordance with ASTM C 192. The dimension of the cylinder was 150 mm x

300 mm (6” in diameter and 12” length). Six cylinders were cast for every mix.

31

Curing and Storage After removing from the molds the specimens were stored in a moist condition

until the age of 7 days. A moist condition is that in which free water is maintained on the

surfaces of the specimens at all times. After the completion of moist curing, the

specimens were stored at a temperature of 21+30 C (70+ 50 F) until the completion of the

test.

Procedure Age at loading – The samples were loaded at an age of 28 days to compare the

creep potential of different concretes.

Immediately before loading the creep specimens, the compressive strength of the

concrete was determined in accordance with Test Method ASTM C39. The specimens

were loaded at an intensity of not more than 40% of the compressive strength at the age

of loading.

Prior to loading the specimens, strain readings were recorded by means of a multi-

position digital strain gage for all the specimens i.e., both creep specimens (specimens

subjected to sustained load) and shrinkage specimens. Gage points were fixed at 254 mm

(10in.). apart using a punch bar. The creep specimens were placed in a spring-system-

loading frame and subjected to a sustained load of 9900 kgs (22,000 pounds). The

sustained load was checked at frequent intervals by a calibrated pressure gage and was

adjusted by a hydraulic jack. Strain readings for creep specimens were recorded

immediately after loading. Readings were taken at intervals of 4 hrs for the first day, 8

hrs for the second and third day, every day for the first week and every week for the first

month. The final reading was taken at the end of 60 days.

Specimen calculations Loaded specimens: -

Readings taken immediately before loading: Face A-0.2662 Average: = 0.2660

Face B-0.2658

First reading immediately after loading: Face A-0.2678 Average: = 0.2677

Face B-0.2676

32

After 144 hrs (6 days) of loading: Face A-0.2720 Average: = 0.2719

Face B-0.2718

Initial unit elastic strain = (0.2677 – 0.2660) / 10 = 0.00017 = 170 x 10-6 Total unit strain after 144 hrs (6 days) of loading = (0.2719 – 0.2660)/10

= 0.00059 = 590 x 10-6

Control specimens (Shrinkage): -

Readings were taken for control specimens simultaneously with the loaded specimen

readings: Face A-0.2692 Average: = 0.2684

Face B-0.2676

After 144 hrs (6 days): Face A-0.2700 Average: = 0.2692

Face B-0.2685

Unit shrinkage strain after 144 hrs (6 days) = (0.2692-0.2684) / 10

= 0.00008 = 85 x 10-6 After 144 hrs (6 days):

Unit creep strain = Total unit strain - Unit shrinkage strain - Initial unit elastic strain

= (590 - 85 - 170) x 10-6 = 335 x 10-6 in./in.

Unit specific creep = Unit creep strain / Stress applied

= 335 x 10-6 / 800 = 0.42 x 10-6 in./in./psi

Creep rate

The creep rate [F(K)] at any age is found by using the following equation, as per ASTM

C 512

∈ = 1/E + F(K)*ln(t+1)

Where ∈ = Total unit strain at any age,

E = Instantaneous elastic modulus, psi (or KPa),

F(K) = Creep rate,

t = time after loading, days.

For example:

After 24 hrs (1 day) of loading:

∈ = 438 x 10-6

33

E = 4.86 x 106 psi.

t = 1 day

F(K) = (∈ - 1/E) / ln (t+1)

= (438 x 10-6 – 1 / 4.86 x 106) / ln (2) = 632 x 10-6

After 144 hrs (6 days) of loading:

∈ = 627 x 10-6

E = 4.86 x 106 psi.

t = 6 days

F(K) = (∈ - 1/E) / ln (t+1)

= (627 x 10-6 – 1 / 4.86 x 106) / ln (7)

= 322 x 10-6

Creep recovery

Initial unit elastic strain = 170 x 10-6 Total unit strain after 1440 hrs (60 days): = 897 x 10-6

Total unit strain immediately after unloading (60th day): = 773 x 10-6

Initial unit elastic recovery strain: = (897- 773) x 10-6 = 124 x 10-6

% Unit elastic recovery = (124 x 10-6 / 170 x 10-6) x 100 = 73 %

Unit shrinkage strain after 1440 hrs (60 days): = 288 x 10-6

Unit creep strain immediately after unloading:

= Total unit strain – Unit shrinkage strain – Initial unit elastic strain

= (773 – 288 – 170) x 10-6

= 315 x 10-6

Total unit strain after 1680 hrs (70 days): = 745 x 10-6

Total unit shrinkage strain after 1680 hrs (70 days): = 313 x 10-6

Unit creep recovery strain after 10 days of unloading (70th day-60th day):

= Total unit strain – Unit shrinkage strain – Initial unit elastic strain

= (745 – 313 - 170) x 10-6

= 262 x 10-6

Unit creep recovery for 10 days: = 315 x 10-6 – 262 x 10-6 = 53 x 10-6

% Unit creep recovery: = (53 x 10-6 / 315 x 10-6) x 100 = 17 %

34

2.4.3.8 Resistance to Rapid Freezing and Thawing of Concrete

(ASTM C 666)

Scope This test method (ASTM C 666) covers the determination of the resistance of

concrete specimens to repeated cycles of freezing and thawing in the laboratory by

Procedure A, Rapid Freezing and Thawing in Water.

Test Specimens The specimens used for this test were four 76.2 x 76.2 x 285.7 mm (3 x 3 x 11.25

in.) prisms and two 101.6 x 101.6 x 355.6 mm (4 x 4 x 14 in.) prisms. Of the four 76.2 x

76.2 x 285.7 mm (3 x 3 x 11.25in.) specimens two were placed in the freeze thaw

apparatus, remaining two were stored in the moist room and the two 101.6 x 101.6 x

355.6 mm (4 x 4 x 14 in.) specimens were tested for modulus of rupture after 14 days.

Curing and Storage All the six specimens were cured in moist room for 14 days. After 14 days two

specimens were placed in the freeze thaw apparatus, two specimens were placed in the

moist room till the completion of 300 cycles.

Procedure The procedure followed was procedure A (rapid freezing and thawing in water).

Immediately after the completion of specified curing period two specimens were tested

for modulus of rupture ASTM C 78. The average length and cross sectional dimensions

were recorded. Initial comparator readings for the four specimens were determined using

the length comparator gage. Time required for an ultrasonic wave to pass through the

length of the specimen was recorded as pulse time (� sec). After the initial readings, two

specimens were subjected to freezing and thawing in the freeze thaw chamber and the

other two specimens in the moist curing room till 300 cycles. After every 30 cycles the

length comparator reading and the pulse time and the weight change were recorded till

the completion of 300 cycles. Based on the pulse time the pulse velocity and the

durability factor were calculated for all the specimens.

35

Formulae used for Calculations Pulse Velocity, V

V = (E (1- μ) / ρ (1 + μ) (1- 2 μ)) 1/2

E = Dynamic modulus of elasticity,

μ = Poisson’s ratio,

ρ = Density.

Dynamic E= CMn2

M = mass of specimen, Kg,

n = fundamental transverse frequency, Hz

C = 1.6067 (L3T/bt3), N.s2(Kg.m2) for a prism,

L = length of specimen, m

t, b = dimensions of cross section of prism, m, t being in the direction which it is driven,

T = a correction factor which depends on the ratio of the radius of gyration, K (the radius

of gyration for a prism is t/3.464) to the length of the specimen, L, and on Poissons ratio.

Durability Factor = PN/M

Where:

DF = durability factor of the test specimen

P = relative dynamic modulus of elasticity at N cycles %

N = number of cycles at which P reaches the specified minimum value for discontinuing

the test or the specified number of cycles at which the exposure is to be terminated,

whichever is less, and

M = specified number of cycles at which the exposure is to be terminated.

Following the completion of 300 cycles of Freeze Thaw, the beam specimens were

broken using the flexural testing machine. The broken beams were then immersed in

water for 30 minutes followed by being wiped with towels to remove any free water on

the surface and then weighed. They were placed in an oven at 105o + 5o C (221 + 9o F)

for 48 hours. They were then weighed and the absorption coefficient was found by the

following formula.

Saturated surface dry absorption coefficient

= Saturated Weight – Oven dry Weight x 100

Oven dry Weight

36

2.4.3.9 Concrete Plastic Shrinkage Reduction Potential 2.4.3.9.1 Test Method

Tests were conducted using 51mm(2 in.) thick slabs that were 1m(3 ft) long and

0.6m(2 ft) wide. The slabs were restrained around the perimeter using wire meshes.

Immediately after casting, the slabs were placed on a flat surface and subjected to a

wind velocity of 22 km/h, using high-velocity fans. The cracks started to develop in

about 1 hr after casting. The mechanism for the development of cracks is a complex

process. Conceptually, it can be assumed that the concrete shrinks as it hardens and

develops cracks when restrained from free movement. The primary factors are amount

of shrinkage, type of restraint, and the tensile strength of the concrete during the

hardening process. In most cases, the cracking would be complete in about 6 to 8 hrs.

The crack widths and lengths were measured after 24 hrs. The longer duration was

chosen to make sure that all the cracks had developed and stabilized. The crack width

was measured accurately at a number of locations along the length of the crack. The

length of the crack was measured for each crack and multiplied by the average width.

Thus the total crack area for a given slab is calculated.

2.4.3.9.2 Mix Proportions:

The major factors that will influence the formation of plastic shrinkage cracks are

the cement content, the water to cement ratio, the maximum size of the coarse

aggregates, the wind velocity, the humidity and the ambient temperature. The plastic

shrinkage will be higher, the higher the cement content, the higher the water-content,

higher the ambient temperature, higher the wind velocity, lower the humidity and lower

the maximum size of the aggregates. The testing conditions, such as the ambient

temperature, the humidity, and the wind velocity (22 km/h) were kept constant for each

batch. Tests are conducted for all the three mixes, control concrete, optimized without

fly ash and optimized with fly ash

The basic mixture proportions for (1 cubic yard) for all the mixes used are as follows:

37

Control Optimum Optimum ( pcy) (without flyash) (pcy)(with flyash) (pcy)

Cement (Type I/II) 655 590 472**Fly ash 1481" Max Size Coarse Aggregate 17251.5” Max size Coarse Aggregate (27.5% of Total Aggregate, 2825 pcy) 777 777¾” Max size Coarse Aggregate (37.5% of Total Aggregate, 2825 pcy) 1060 1060Fine Aggregate (Medium Sand) (35% of Total Aggregate, 2825 pcy) 1100 989 989Water 275 248 222Water/cement ratio 0.42 0.42 0.47Water/(cement + fly ash) ratio 0.36

2.4.3.10 Temperature monitoring in Concrete using Thermochron I-Button

Scope:

Thermochron I-Button can be used as an effective device to monitor the

temperature variation in concrete.

I-Button Device:

The Thermochron I-Button is the product of Dallas Semiconductor corp. The first

product in the I-Button line of Temperature Sensors is the DS1920. The DS1920 is a

digital thermometer that gives you the ability to read the current temperature of the

environment in which it is placed or mounted. With a simple touch of the DS1920, with a

1-Wire probe, it is possible to read the current temperature from -55°C to 100°C. The I-

Button's embedded computer chip integrates a 1-Wire transmitter/receiver, a globally

unique address, a thermometer, a clock/calendar, a thermal history log, and 512 bytes of

additional memory to store user data, such as a shipping manifest. The reusable I-Button

logs data for more than 10 years or up to 1 million temperature measurements.

Thermochrons store data in two different ways that serve different application needs.

First, it can wake up to take 2048 time- and date-stamped temperature readings at equal

intervals between 1 and 255 minutes, then store the data in a time-temperature log format.

Second, thermochrons also simultaneously store each temperature sample in a histogram.

The histogram memory consists of 56 bins in 2-degree increments; each bin holds 65,500

temperature readings for up to 10 years.

In order to record the temperature with the I-Button we need the following kit.

38

• DS1921L-F51 Thermochron iButton • DS9093F iButton Keyring Fob Attachment • DS907U-009 9-pin Universal 1-Wire COM Port Adapter • DS1402D-DR8 Blue Dot Receptor with RJ-11 Connector • Instruction Sheet

Programming of the I-Button:

In order to record the temperature in the concrete before placing in the concrete I-

button should be programmed according to the requirement. In our investigation we have

programmed it in such a way that it records temperature at every five minutes interval so

that it can record up to a period of 7 days, as the capacity of the I-Button is approximately

2048 readings. The starting of mission in I-button for recording the temperature includes

the following steps.

1. Setting the clock.

2. Setting the time alarm.

3. Setting the sample rate.

4. Setting the temperature alarm.

5. Setting the mission start delay (time to start).

6. Checking when mission will end;

7. Selecting data rollover or not.

8. Finish.

Placing I-Button in Concrete:

After programming the I-button was placed in a concrete cylinder (4”x8”) to

record the temperature. The cylinder was compacted on a mechanical vibrator. I-button

was placed such that the whole device was surrounded by concrete so that it records only

the temperature of the concrete. The cylinder was filled up to half the depth and

compacted first and then the I-button was placed taking care that it is in the center of the

cylinder. Then the cylinder was compacted again by filling the remaining depth with

concrete.

Retrieving Data from I-Button:

After 24 hours the cylinder was demolded and kept in the moist curing room.

Cylinder was tested for compressive strength at the age of 7 days. After the cylinder had

39

failed in compression, I-button was taken out of the cylinder by breaking the cylinder

taking care not to damage the I-button. Data was transferred to the computer using

DS907U-009 9-pin Universal 1-Wire COM Port Adapter and DS9093F I-button Keyring

Fob Attachment, DS1402D-DR8 Blue Dot Receptor with RJ-11 Connector. Data

obtained from the I-button was in text format, which was delimited into excel file and

analyzed.

Mix Designation:

All the mixes were designated with the number of mix and the name of the mix as

1CLB for Control Limestone Bridge deck concrete mix –1. All the mix designations and

descriptions are given in Table 4.13.

2.5 Test Specimens The specimens cast for each mix are as follows:

2.5.1 Determination of Initial and Final Setting Time (ASTM C403)

Cement mortar in a mold of size 762 x 152.4 x 152.4 mm (30 x 6 x 6 inches)

2.5.2 Strength Development

Twenty one – 100 mm x 200 mm (4 in. x 8 in.) cylinders – For Compressive

Strength and Static Modulus Tests.

2.5.3 Sulfate Attack on Concrete

• Six 285.7 x 25.4 x 25.4 mm (11.25 x 1 x 1 in.) mortar bars and

• Twenty-one 50.8 mm (2 in.) cubes of concrete.

2.5.4 Resistance to Rapid Freezing and Thawing of Concrete

• Four 285.7 x 76.2 x 76.2 mm (11.25 x 3 x 3 in.) prisms for freeze thaw testing

and

• Two 355.6 x 101.6 x 101.6 mm (14 x 4 x 4 in.) prisms for flexure testing.

2.5.5 Scaling Resistance of Concrete Surfaces Exposed to Deicing Chemicals

• Two 355.6 x 152.4 x 152.4 mm (14 x 6 x 6 in.) concrete beams.

40

2.5.6 Alkali Aggregate Reactivity

• Four prisms, size 285 x 25.4 x 25.4 mm (11.25 x 1 x 1 inches) having a 250 mm

(10 in) gage length were made for AAR testing.

2.5.7 Drying Shrinkage of Concrete

• Three specimens 286 x 76 x 76 mm (3-in.-square section and 11.5-in.long) prisms

were made from the concrete.

2.5.8 Creep of Concrete in Compression

• Six cylinders, 150 mm x 300 mm (6” in diameter and 12” length).

41

CHAPTER 3.0

TASK DESCRIPTION

3.1 Task 1- Review and summarize literature relevant to mix designs using a well

graded aggregate to minimize drying shrinkage in structural concrete and identify

laboratory test procedures to determine concrete’s tendency for shrinkage cracking.

3.1.1 Gradation of Aggregates:

The particle size distribution of the aggregates is called gradation. To obtain the

gradation curve for aggregate, sieve analysis has to be conducted in accordance with

ASTM C136. The gradations of aggregates are classified into three types, well graded,

gap-graded, and uniformly graded, which are illustrated in Figure 3.1 [9].

Figure 3.1: Gradation of Aggregate [9]

Continuous

Gap

Uniform

100%

0%

Increasing particle size/sieve

Increasing cumulative percentage passing

In uniformly graded aggregate, only a few sizes dominate the bulk material and the

aggregates are not effectively packed. The result is porous concrete requiring more

cement paste. Gap graded aggregate is a kind of grading which lacks one or more

intermediate sizes. This grading can make good concrete when the required workability is

relatively low. When it is to be used in high workability mixes, segregation may become

42

a problem. It would require higher amount of fines, would require more water, and would

increase susceptibility to shrinkage. Well-graded aggregates are desirable for making

concrete, as the space between larger particles is effectively filled by smaller particles to

produce a well-packed structure, requiring lesser amount of cement paste. This gradation

would reduce the need for excess water still maintains adequate workability. Achieving a

better gradation may require the use of three or more different aggregate sizes. An

optimized gradation is defined as one in which practical and economic constraints are

combined with attempts to obtain and use a mix of aggregate particle sizes that will lead

to improved workability, durability, and strength [9, 10].

Uniformly Graded Well GradedGap Graded

Figure 3.2: Gradation of Aggregates [10]

An optimum graded aggregate is the key to the mixture performance and

constructability, and would provide the workability needed for placement and finishing

with the lowest water to cement ratio. The 1923 ASTM C33 standard included

requirements that contributed to well-graded mixtures. The 1986 ASTM C33 standard

contributes to near gap grading with its inherent placement problems. The major

difference in these two standards is in the sand gradation. The 1923 standard required that

the sand be “predominately coarse particles” and have 85 percent passing the No.4 (4.75

mm) sieve. Today’s sands are finer with 95 to 100 percent passing the No.4 (4.75 mm)

sieve [4].

Abrams proposed in 1918 the first and foremost theory that emphasized the need

to minimize water content in the mix. He developed a proportioning method based upon

his combined aggregate fineness modulus formula and that led to the rational results for

43

the development of what is known as his “Water – Cement Ratio Theory” [2]. Abrams

three-step mixture proportioning process was modified to address

1. Size and grading of the fine and coarse aggregates.

2. Consistency for workability of concrete.

3. The quantity of cement.

The objective is to reduce the total water. ASTM C33-23 aggregate grading requirements

required finer coarse aggregate and coarser fine aggregate to assure that the combined

aggregate in concrete mixture was well graded. That condition seldom exists today. The

goal is to select a blend of aggregates to reduce the need for water and cementitious

materials. Once the aggregates are optimized with low paste content, the mixture will

provide the mobility needed for placement and consolidation without segregation [2].

Concrete mixture optimization involves the adaptation of available resources to

meet varying engineering criteria, construction operations, and economic needs.

Optimization is often informally taken into consideration before and during construction

on a non-quantitative basis by “adding half a bag of cement,” “cutting the rock 100

pounds and replacing it with sand,” or adding a high-range water reducer. When mixtures

are optimized on a quantitative basis, construction productivity will be improved,

durability increased and both materials and construction costs reduced. Current ASTM

and similar aggregate grading limits do not contribute to mixture optimization, as such

standards do not address gradations of blends. Aggregates that do not meet ASTM C33

gradation requirements, but are otherwise acceptable under a quality standard, can be

used with equal ease to produce high quality concrete with well-graded composite [11].

According to Shilstone, there are three principal factors for optimization: the

relationship between coarseness of the two larger aggregates and the fine one, the total

amount of mortar, and the aggregate particle distribution. The amount of mortar needed

increases with the greater contrast in aggregate size. Increased mortar means increased

sand, cement, and water. He contends that mortar is also the most vulnerable element in

the mix. Gap-graded mixes contain a greater amount of coarse particles, which also has

an adverse effect on workability and finishability. He also says, “If we know the product

we want, we can find the ways to fill voids with inert rock and reduce mortar paste”. If

we can reduce mortar paste, we will get better durability. The larger the size of aggregate

44

is used, the lesser the mortar will be required to coat the surface, fill the voids and

produce a workable concrete. The largest maximum size should be used wherever

practical. Fine aggregate has the most surface area to be coated by paste and, as such, has

the most significant effect on water demand. No more fine aggregates than are absolutely

necessary for workability and placeability should be used. Workability relates to the ease

with which concrete can be placed. Finishability relates to the ease and quality by which

both formed and unformed finishes are produced [12, 13].

The role of cement paste is to fill the voids between the aggregates, to give a

certain workability (like the grease in a ball bearing) and to bind the aggregates together

when the paste hardens. A reduction in the cement paste (and the concrete mix price) is

thus mainly possible through a reduction of the void volume between the aggregates. To

achieve this, a better packing of the aggregate mix is required [14]. The workability of

concrete is affected both by the proportions and by the individual properties of the

constituents. For given materials and specific volume ratios of cement and water, the

workability of the concrete varies as the relative amounts of coarse and fine aggregates.

Several investigators have noted that the workability achieves a maximum value when

the aggregates are combined in their “optimum” proportions [15].

Plastic shrinkage cracks occur during the first few hours after casting concrete

while the material is still in a semi-fluid or plastic state. The study of plastic shrinkage

cracking is complicated because the material properties that determine whether such

cracks will form, are time-dependent and change rapidly during the first few hours in the

life of the concrete. The shrinkage that is the root cause of these cracks is induced by the

loss of water. It is commonly held that plastic shrinkage cracking develops when the rate

of evaporation exceeds the rate at which bleed water is furnished to the surface and that

there is a high probability of the formation of plastic shrinkage cracks when the rate of

evaporation from the surface of the concrete is in excess of 0.2 lb of water/ft2/ hr. It has

been observed that for given evaporative conditions, mixes with higher paste content

have a higher tendency to crack. Plastic shrinkage cracks may impair the serviceability,

durability, or esthetics of a concrete structure, and are therefore of economic significance

in the concrete construction industry [16]. Plastic shrinkage and drying shrinkage can

cause transverse cracks early in the life of pavements. These surface cracks can

45

deteriorate over time due to traffic loads and climatic variations, leading to more severe

cracks [17].

Unlike normal concrete, High Performance Concrete (HPC) behaves as a true

composite material with an efficient transfer of stresses between mortar and coarse

aggregate even at relatively low loads, thereby demonstrating the early involvement of

coarse aggregate in the mechanical behavior of HPC [18].

Applications to Bridges

Each of the enhancements for HPC can be explained under the foregoing, long proven

basic concrete technology principles.

Ease of Placement: This is important because it recognizes that the design must be a part

of the constructed solution. Most of the concrete placed in concrete bridges is placed by

pump. When there are pumping problems, high-range water reducers are added to reduce

construction delays and wear on pumping lines. It is often more effective to improve the

grading of the combined aggregate to reduce the need for water and paste.

Compaction without segregation: The problem of segregation is wide spread and is

rarely challenged. Though most specifications cite the requirement that concrete should

not be allowed to segregate. The effects of segregation can be most easily observed on

highways, streets and bridge decks when spalling, scaling and cracking are present in

limited areas while the rest of the concrete is sound. Often these problems are reported as

freeze thaw damage.

Weymouth researched the effects of aggregate particle distribution on mixture

performance and described what he termed “particle interference” leading to mixture

segregation. Powers expanded on Weymouth’s work and illustrated his model for particle

interference on segregation in terms of dry mixtures of two particle sizes to illustrate the

conditions:

a. If the average clear distance between the larger particles is considerably greater

than the diameter of smaller particles, the particles would not segregate when

mixed.

b. If the average distance between the larger particles is just equal to the diameter of

smaller particles, the particles would not segregate when mixed.

46

c. If the average clearance between the larger particles is less than the diameter of

smaller particles, the particles would segregate when mixed [2].

Shilstone using the coarseness factor chart (Figure 3.3) described the above

problem in a different manner. The X- axis is the percent of the combined aggregate

retained on the No. 8 sieve that is also retained on the 3/8 inch sieve. The Y- axis

represents the percent of the combined aggregate passing No. 8 sieve.

Figure 3.3: Modified Coarseness Factor Chart [2]

The Zones as used characterize the potential performance of different mixtures.

Zone I mixtures have a high tendency to segregate. Zone II mixtures have a good

relationship between the two size groupings for 1 ½ inch to ½ inch nominal maximum

size. Zone III shows the same relationship for ½ inch and finer nominal maximum

aggregate size mixtures. Zone IV depicts oversanded mixtures that tend to produce

variable strength and experience high plastic cracking and drying shrinkage. These

segregate under vibration causing the hardened concrete to scale and spall, and have poor

durability. Zone V, and all below the trend bar, is rocky. The zones are field experience

based [2].

47

There are three primary sources of segregation. The first two are mix related and

third is engineering design related. The first can be observed during construction. If the

mixture is not cohesive, segregation will occur during placement and be observed as the

mix comes off the truck chute, conveyer or pump line. The coarse aggregate separates

from the mortar. Once a mixture is segregated, it cannot be recombined to be in the same

state as in the mixer.

The second source of segregation occurs during vibration of an over mortared mixture.

Cramer, et al compared two mixtures, one was traditional Wisconsin DOT mixture that

was deficient in particles between 3/8 inch and No. 16 sieves, and the other was better

graded. After three minutes of vibration, the majority of coarse particles were on the

bottom and fines were on top. There was minimal segregation for the better graded

mixture.

Poor constructability is the cause of the third basis for segregation when reinforcing steel

design prevents proper placement of concrete. The mixture segregates as it bounces over

the steel.

Early Age Strength: This should be performance objective of last resort as it may

contribute to many problems.

Long-term mechanical properties: Among the properties to be considered are: modulus

of elasticity, creep, shrinkage, tensile strength, and thermal characteristics. High modulus

of elasticity, especially at an early age can prevent creep that occurs in response to

thermal or drying shrinkage. The concrete can become rigid too fast so that it cannot

respond to the volume changes such as drying or thermal. Therefore it cracks. High

modulus of elasticity at an early age can be obtained by using high cementitious materials

content and low water-cementitious materials ratio.

Permeability and Density: These two factors go hand-in-hand, as they appear to be the

primary qualities that affect long-term serviceability. Water and water-borne deleterious

materials such as salts and sulfates contribute to, many problems. When water penetration

is reduced, durability is improved. When gravel or cubically crushed coarse and

intermediate particles along with natural sand are used, mixtures with coarseness factor

of 60 and a workability factor of approximately 35 have produced outstanding results.

48

They require less water and allow a reduction in paste thereby contributing to reduced

shrinkage.

Heat of Hydration: The reaction of Portland cement and water is an exothermic reaction

affecting the temperature of the concrete during the early curing. The lower the concrete

temperature during hydration, the better the concrete. Optimizing the combined aggregate

gradation to reduce the need for water and cement can reduce the heat of hydration.

Toughness: The principle toughness factors are resistance to abrasion and erosion.

Bridge deck and pier concrete in flowing water must be tough for different reasons. The

concrete in deck must withstand the forces of abrasion while concrete in water must resist

erosion. A gap graded mix will erode because the mortar is less resistant to erosion than a

good natural aggregate.

Volume Stability: Cracking in concrete has the most ominous effect on its performance.

It is the problem in almost all modern concrete. Krauss and Rogalla conducted an

extensive study of transverse cracking in bridge decks. The most significant factors

affecting the transverse cracking are: cement content, creep, elastic modulus, concrete

temperature during placement, heat generated during hydration, drying shrinkage, and

water content. Aggregate type, mineral additions, admixtures, and cement type also

influence cracking. Some of the general recommendations to reduce cracking include: 1)

low amounts of cement, 2) low shrinkage aggregate, 3) low water-cement ratio and 4)air

entrainment.

Long life in severe environments: All of the foregoing concerns lead to long life in

some of the worst environments in which concrete exists [2].

According to Jim Mikulenic of Central Paving, “In fast-track contracts,

optimization is immeasurably powerful”. Jim Thompson of Ash Grove Cement in Kansas

City, KS, acknowledges the fact that, “A high water requirement is needed because of

gap-grading in the C33 specification”. “By adding intermediate aggregates, the water

content was reduced by five gallons per yard of concrete maintaining the same slump.

49

There was an increase in the strength by 1000 psi and it also improved the durability”

[12].

By using shilstone’s method and a third aggregate to achieve a more optimal

particle size distribution, the Colorado Department of Transportation reported a 5 percent

reduction in water demand and a 10 percent increase in strength on a bridge deck project

[12].

Investigations carried for paving in Wisconsin showed that the use of optimized

total aggregate gradation in pavement resulted in an increase in compressive strength of

10 to 20 percent, reduced water demand by up to 15 percent to achieve comparable

slump, air contents achieved with 20 to 30 percent reductions in air entraining agent. The

optimized mixes in field required an average of 15 percent less water compared with the

near gap-graded mixes in achieving comparable slumps. The same water reduction was

not realized in laboratory mixes. In addition, 30 percent less air-entraining agent was

needed to entrain the same amount of air in the field optimized mix. The results obtained

for the bridge deck investigation were not as conclusive as in the pavement study. In the

field and laboratory, the slightly optimized mixes again required less water than the near

gap-graded mixes to achieve similar slump, but these water reductions were not as large

as in the pavement study and ranged from 1 to 7 percent [19].

3.1.2 Methods for Optimizing Aggregate Gradation:

1. 0.45 Power Chart Method

2. Shilstone Method

3. USAF Constructability Chart

4. 8-18 Method

3.1.2.1 0.45 Power Chart Method

One common way of characterizing aggregate gradation is by making a gradation

plot on a 0.45 power chart, which also contains the maximum density line. Superpave

adopted the 0.45 power chart for graphical display of gradation as currently

recommended by FHWA. No evidence of either published or unpublished data was

50

discovered which would support the adoption of any value other than 0.45. Some reports

have circulated in the industry that plotting the sieve opening raised to the 0.45 power

may not be universally applicable for all aggregates. Specifically, it is claimed that the

power should be larger, 0.50 or 0.60 for some aggregates, particularly crushed

aggregates. SHRP investigated the history of the 0.45 power chart before adoption. The

0.45 power chart as used today is based on the work of Nijboer [20] from Netherlands

and from Goode and Lufsey of the Bureau of Public Roads [21]. Nijboer evaluated the

packing of both quarried aggregates and uncrushed gravel. He found that the densest

configuration occurred for a straight line gradation plotted on a 0.45 power chart. Goode

and Lufsey validated the work of Nijboer for aggregates in the United States and further

investigated the packing of various typical gradations used in United States [22].

Figure 3.4: 0.45 Power Chart for 1 inch Aggregate

3.1.2.1.1 Maximum Density Line

SHRP investigated the history of defining maximum density lines and evaluated

the current status of maximum density lines in the industry today. The work of Goode

and Lufsey validated the 0.45 power chart and investigated one specific maximum

density line for contrived typical gradations. The method proposed by Goode and Lufsey

in their AAPT paper for determining where to draw the maximum density line is

cumbersome and is not used by any agencies today. Concurrent with SHRP, the FHWA

formed an expert task group on volumetric properties of asphalt mixes. The group

51

investigated two methods of drawing maximum density lines. One method draws a line

from the percent passing 0.075 mm sieve to the first sieve passing 100%. The other

method contained in the Asphalt Institute publications requires the line to be drawn from

the origin to the maximum sieve size. Background and research supporting the Asphalt

Institute method is published in ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 1147. Using a

modified Delphi process, consensus was reached to draw a maximum density line

According to the method proposed by the Asphalt Institute. Superpave classifies

gradations based on their nominal aggregate size, defined as “one size larger than the first

size to retain more than 10% by weight of aggregate”. The maximum aggregate size is

defined as, “one sieve size larger than the nominal aggregate size” [22].

A well-graded aggregate combination will follow the maximum density line to the

1.18 mm (No. 16) sieve. A slight deviation below the maximum density line at the 1.18

mm (No.16) sieve will occur to account for the effect of the fines provided by the

cementitious materials [5].

3.1.2.1.2 Validation of 0.45 Power Chart in obtaining the Optimized Aggregate

Gradation for Improving the Strength Aspects of High Performance Concrete.

Historically, the 0.45 power chart has been used to develop uniform gradations for

asphalt mix designs; however it has now been widely used to develop uniform gradations

for portland cement concrete mix designs. Some reports have circulated in the industry

that plotting the sieve opening raised to the 0.45 power may not be universally applicable

for all aggregates. In this project the validity of 0.45 power chart has been evaluated

using quartzite aggregates. Aggregates of different sizes and gradations were blended to

fit exactly the gradations of curves raised to 0.35, 0.40, 0.45, 0.50 and 0.55. Five mixes,

which incorporated the aggregate gradations of the five power curves, were made and

tested for compressive strength and flexural strength. A control mix was also made whose

aggregate gradations did not match the straight-line gradations of the 0.45 power curve.

This was achieved by using a single size aggregate and sand. The water-cement ratio and

the cement content were kept constant for all the six mixes. The results showed that the

52

mix incorporating the 0.45 power chart gradations gave the highest strength when

compared to other power charts and the control concrete. Thus the 0.45 power curve can

be adopted with confidence to obtain the densest packing of aggregates and it may be

universally applicable for all aggregates. A detailed report of this investigation with the

experimental results and analysis is given in Appendix K.

3.1.2.2 Shilstone Method

There are three principal factors upon which mixture proportions can be

optimized for a given need with a given combination of aggregate characteristics:

• The relationship between the coarseness of two larger aggregate fractions and the

fine fraction.

• Total amount of mortar.

• Aggregate particle distribution.

It is difficult to picture the relationship of particles and their behavior during concrete

mixing, delivery and placement. Figure 3.5 represents the profile of a concrete composite

with a good distribution of large and smaller particles, and mortar to coat all surfaces.

Figure 3.6 represents a condition where there are no intermediate particles, as a result the

mortar requirement is increased. Increased mortar means increased sand cement and

water. Such increases do not lead to the casting of high quality concrete. The concrete

represented by Figure 3.5 is a well-graded mixture and Figure 3.6 is a gap-graded

mixture. Normally, gap-graded or near gap-graded mixtures contain a greater amount of

coarse particles than shown in the Figures, but also has an adverse effect upon

pumpability and finishability.

Figure 3.5: Well-graded mixture [11] Figure 3.6: Gap-graded mixture [11]

53

Shilstone developed a grading chart showing the aggregate gradations and the

combined gradations for the coarsest, finest, and optimum mixtures. The chart used is

divided into three segments identified as Q, I, W. This was based on comments by other

mix researchers about the amount and function of the “intermediate aggregate” particles.

Figure 3.7: Concrete Aggregate Grading Chart [11]

Intermediate aggregate is defined as that with particles passing the 3/8 inch (9.5

mm) sieve but retained on the No. 8 sieve (2.36 mm). The letter identifications were

based on:

Q – The plus 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) sieve particles are the high quality, inert filler sizes.

Generally, the more the better because they reduce the need for mortar that shrinks and

cracks.

I – The minus 3/8 inch (9.5 mm), plus No.8 (2.36 mm) sieve particles are the

intermediate particles that fill major voids and aid in mix mobility, or if elongated and

sharp, interference particles that contribute to mixture harshness.

W – The minus No.8 (2.36 mm) sieve particles give the mixture workability, functioning

as ball bearings in machinery. The character and amount of the mixture proportion

largely determines workability at a given consistency.

54

It was observed from studies and literature that a simple theory could be stated:

“The amount of fine sand required to produce an optimum mixture is a function of the

relationship between the two larger aggregate fractions”. Later the following was added:

“The amount of fine sand needed to optimize a mixture is a function of the amount of

cementitious materials in the mixture”. The particle distribution of any mixture can be

calculated and the results can be plotted on the coarseness factor chart.

The amount of the fine aggregate in a mixture must be in balance with the needs

of the larger, inert particles. If there is too much sand; the mixture is “sticky”, has a high

water demand, requires more cementitious materials to produce a given strength,

increases pump pressures, and creates finishing and crazing problems. If there is not

enough sand, the mixture is “bony” and creates a different set of placing and finishing

problems [11].

3.1.2.2.1 Mortar Factor

It is an extension of coarseness factor chart. The mortar consists of fine sand

(minus No. 8 [2.36 mm] sieve) and the paste. With reasonably sound aggregates properly

distributed, it is the fraction of the mixture that has a major effect upon the engineer’s

interest in strength, drying shrinkage, durability and creep. It is also the segment that

provides the contractor’s need for workability, pumpability, placeability and finishability.

A mixture that is optimized for strength and shrinkage but cannot be properly placed and

compacted will perform poorly regardless of the water-cement ratio.

3.1.2.2.2 Aggregate particle distribution

Practically any sound aggregate can be combined to produce a given strength

concrete. However, when particles are poorly distributed the mixture can cause both

construction and performance problems. A deficiency of particles passing the 3/8 inch

(9.5 mm) sieve but retained on the No.8 (2.36 mm) sieve necessitates use of more mortar.

Figure 3.8 is a computer generated particle distribution chart for a mixture using

aggregates complying with the gradation acceptable by ASTM C33 size number 57 stone

and concrete sand. Such a mixture, if used at a reasonable mortar content, will manifest

finishing problems. Figure 3.9 describes ideal solution, which is seldom possible. Most

local aggregates can be blended in such a way as to produce a uniform particle

55

distribution when a greater attention is paid to the composite than to the individual

stockpiles. Figure 3.10 reflects the particle distribution produced by using 1923 version

of ASTM C33 and recommendations of the first issue of the Portland Cement

Association’s Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures. Most industrial nations and

some sections of the U.S.A use at least three aggregate sizes (2 coarse and 1 fine) to

assure more consistent particle distribution. The third aggregate is predominantly

intermediate size (3/8 inch to No.8 [9.5 to 2.36 mm]) to provide a bridge between the

large particles and mortar, fill major voids, and increases concrete density [11].

Perc

ent

Ret

aine

d

Sieve Size

Figure 3.8: Near gap-graded mixture [11]

Perc

ent

Ret

aine

d

Sieve Size

Figure 3.9: Optimum graded mixture [11]

56

Perc

ent

Ret

aine

d

Sieve Size

Figure 3.10: Combined gradation (1929 ASTM C33) [11] 3.1.2.3 USAF Constructability Chart 3.1.2.3.1 Coarseness Factor Chart

The Coarseness factor chart was developed during an investigation conducted

under contract with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mediterranean Division, for

construction of the Saudi Arabian National Guard Headquarters, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

The objective of materials blending for strength is to fill voids with sound, inert filler to

reduce the volume of binder needed to produce a sound product. Portland cement

concrete is no different except for adjustments for construction needs.

The combined aggregate grading should be used to calculate a coarseness factor

and a workability factor. The coarseness factor for a particular combined aggregate

gradation is determined by dividing the amount retained above the 3/8 inch (9.5 mm)

sieve by the amount retained above the No.8 sieve (2.36 mm). The workability factor is

the percentage of combined aggregate finer than the No.8 sieve. This factor can simply be

determined by using the percentage passing the No.8 sieve, from the combined aggregate

sieve analysis. The coarseness factor should not be greater than 80 nor less than 30 [23].

Optimum mix is one with a coarseness factor below 75 and workability factor above 29.

57

NOTES:

COARSENESS FACTOR =% RETAINED ABOVE 9.5mm SIEVE

1

2

45

35

25

20

30

40

304050607080

CO

ARSE

SANDY

WELLGRADED1-1/2"-3/4"

WELLGRADEDMinus 3/4"

CO

ARSE

GAP

GR

ADED

ROCKY

CONTROL LINE

AGG

REG

ATE

SIZE

FIN

E

% RETAINED ABOVE #8 SIEVEX 100

WORKABILITY FACTOR = % PASSING #8

COARSENESS FACTOR

WO

RK

ABIL

ITY

FAC

TOR

2

1

27.5

Figure 3.11: USAF Constructability Chart [23]

3.1.2.4 8-18 Method

The percent retained ranges, 8 and 18 are based on previous research including a 1974

study by James Shilstone for the U. S. Army Corps. The well-graded aggregate satisfying

8-18 gradation reduces the total surface area of the aggregate, thus reducing the water

demand of the aggregate and the total amount of water required to produce a yard of

contractor friendly concrete. The water content is well known as an important factor in

setting the shrinkage potential of the concrete mixture. This was used as a part of

MnDOT’s specification as an optional gradation incentive program. By using the percent

retained method, it is desired that there be gradual increase in material retained on each

sieve to the stone sizes larger than ½ inch (12.5 mm) and then have a gradual tapering of

the curve from the 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) sieve to the lowest sieve size. A general rule of

thumb is to keep the material retained on each sieve to less than 18 percent but more than

8 percent. Most aggregates used for concrete mixtures are deficient in the 3/8 inch (9.5

58

mm) to the No. 30 sieve sizes; therefore, most combined gradations will have a gap in the

blend size particles. A well-graded aggregate combination will have no significant peaks

and /or dips. A gap-graded aggregate combination will have peaks above 18 percent

retained or below 8 percent retained [24].

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

Sieve Size

Perc

ent R

etai

ned

Upper Limit Lower Limit Passing Figure 3.12: Well-graded Aggregate [23]

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

2 1 1/2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200

Sieve Size

Perc

ent R

etai

ned

Upper Limit Lower Limit Passing

Figure 3.13: Gap-graded Aggregate [23]

59

3.1.3 Fly Ash

Portland cement concrete is a major construction material used worldwide.

Unfortunately, the production of Portland cement releases large amounts of CO into the 2

atmosphere; for example, the production of one tonne of cement contributes

approximately one tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere. Because this gas is a major

contributor to the greenhouse effect and the global warming of the planet, the developed

countries are considering very severe regulations and limitations on the CO2 emissions

[25].

In view of the global sustainable development, it is imperative that supplementary

cementing materials be used to replace large proportions of cement in the concrete

industry. The most available supplementary cementing material worldwide is fly ash, a

by-product of the thermal power stations. It is estimated that approximately 600 million

tonnes of fly ash was available worldwide in the year 2002. At present the current

worldwide utilization rate of fly ash in concrete is about 10 percent. This indicates that

there is a potential for the use of much larger amounts of fly ash leading to significant

reductions in cement production, which would benefit the environment [25].

In addition to offering environmental advantages, fly ash also improves the

performance and quality of concrete. Fly ash affects the plastic properties of concrete by

improving workability, reducing water demand, reducing segregation and bleeding, and

lowering heat of hydration. Fly ash increases strength, reduces permeability, reduces

corrosion of reinforcing steel, increases sulfate resistance, and reduces alkali-aggregate

reaction. Fly ash concrete reaches its maximum strength slower than concrete made with

Portland cement. The techniques for working with this type of concrete are standard for

the industry and will not impact on the cost of a job.

Fly ash is defined [26] in cement and concrete terminology (ACI Committee 116)

as “the finely divided residue resulting from the combustion of ground or powdered coal,

which is transported from the firebox through the boiler by flue gases”. Fly ashes are

generally finer than cement and consist mainly of glassy-spherical particles as well as

residues of hematite and magnetite, char, and some crystalline phases formed during

cooling. Use of fly ash in concrete started in the United States in the early 1930's. The

first comprehensive study was that described in 1937, by R. E. Davis at the University of

60

California (Kobubu, 1968; Davis et al., 1937). The major breakthrough in using fly ash in

concrete was the construction of Hungry Horse Dam in 1948, utilizing 120,000 metric

tons of fly ash. This decision by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation paved the way for using

fly ash in concrete constructions [27].

Fly ashes are coal combustion by-products that consist of silica, alumina, ferric

oxides, and calcium oxide, and are classified as Class F or C based on the total measured

oxide content. Class C Fly ashes, produced when lignite or sub-bituminous coal is

burned, typically contain more than 10% calcium oxide and less than 70% of combined

alumina, silica, and ferric oxides. Class F fly ash, produced when anthracite or

bituminous coal is burned, has at least 70% alumina, silica, and ferric oxide; and Class C

has at least 50% [28].

Fly ash from combustion of pulverized coal has been used as cement replacement

in the building industry for a long time. Up to 30-40% of the cement in concrete can be

replaced. Since fly ash is pozzolanic, it interacts with the calcium hydroxide produced

during cement hydration, thus forming additional calcium silicate hydrate that enhances

the strength of the concrete. The pozzolanic property of fly ash is due to its content of

glass phase, which in turn is related to the composition of the coal and the burning

temperature [29]. Fly ash particles are almost totally spherical in shape, allowing them to

flow and blend freely in mixtures. That capability is one of the properties making fly ash

a desirable admixture for concrete.

Some of the engineering properties of fly ash that are of particular interest when

fly ash is used as an admixture or a cement addition to PCC (Plain Cement Concrete)

mixes include fineness, LOI (Loss on Ignition), chemical composition, moisture content,

and pozzolanic activity. Most specifying agencies refer to ASTM C 618 [83] when citing

acceptance criteria for the use of fly ash in concrete.

3.1.3.1 Advantages of Using Fly Ash in Concrete [84]:

• The incorporation of fly ash in concrete will improve its long-term strength and

modulus of elasticity, reduce its long-term shrinkage and creep, decrease its

permeability significantly at later ages, and enhance its long-term durability

properties.

61

• The incorporation of fly ash in concrete will increase its resistance to the

penetration of chloride ions. This is more evident at later ages.

• The incorporation of Class F fly ash in concrete improves considerably its

resistance to sulfate attack.

• The use of fly ash in concrete will reduce the amount of heat generated in the

concrete mass that, in turn, will reduce thermal gradients and thermal stresses in

concrete.

• The resistance to freezing and thawing of concrete will increase by the use of fly

ash. This property is a direct function of the air-void spacing factor in concrete

that is obtained by the proper use of air-entraining admixtures.

• The incorporation of fly ash in concrete reduces its water demand.

• The incorporation of low-calcium (ASTM Class F) fly ash in concrete helps in

mitigating the expansions caused by alkali silica reactions. Minimum replacement

levels recommended in concretes incorporating reactive aggregates are 20% low-

calcium fly ash.

• Concrete incorporating fly ash will cost less than concrete made with Portland

cement only. The actual savings will depend on the availability of fly ash, and the

transportation and handling costs involved.

3.1.4 Setting Time of Concrete

The setting of concrete represents the transition phase between a fluid and a rigid

state. It is the process through which concrete ceases to behave as a liquid and begins to

respond as a solid material. This transition period starts when concrete loses its plasticity,

becoming an unworkable material; it is complete when concrete possesses enough

strength to support externally applied loads with acceptable and stable deformation [30].

Many research efforts have been devoted to the development of a method and

apparatus to measure the rate of hardening of cement paste and concrete, using various

physical and chemical changes as the criteria, such as heat evolution, volume change,

strength gain and deformation, and changes in electrical conductivity and velocity, and

frequency of sound waves [85, 86]. However a great majority of the methods proposed

62

did not come into practical use either because of the lack of reliable data to demonstrate

their suitability for the measurement or due to the requirement of delicate techniques or

high costs.

It was in 1955 that Tuthill and Cordon developed a method of determining the

variation of the consistency of the mortar component of concrete by testing its resistance

to penetration of a set of needles with different diameter [31]. This test can be used to

determine the effects of variables such as water content, brand, type and amount of

cementitious material, or admixtures upon the time of setting. After many revisions, the

method was adopted by ASTM and is now listed as a standard test method for measuring

setting time of concrete mixtures [32].

ASTM C 403 estimates setting times in concrete by the penetration resistance

method. It defines the initial and final setting time of concrete as the elapsed time after

initial contact of cement and water, required for the mortar sieved from the concrete to

reach a penetration resistance of 3.5 MPa (500 psi) and 28 MPa (4000 psi) respectively.

The degree of solidification depends upon the rate of hydration. Up to the time of

initial setting, the concrete can be remixed or agitated without significant long-term

adverse affects. Prolonged setting of the mixture leads to increased stiffness and hardness

of the material due to the continuing hydration process. Final setting of concrete refers to

beginning phase of the ability of concrete to resist stress. Concrete setting is influenced

by a number of variables such as source, properties, type, and amount of cement, and fly

ash and other cementitious or pozzolanic materials, water/cementitious materials ratio,

temperature of the mixture, chemical admixtures etc [33].

3.1.5 Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals

In the United States, estimates for the cost of rehabilitating bridges and highways

range from $90 billion to $151 billion. Although inadequate maintenance may account

for a large portion of this problem, deicing salts can contribute to the deterioration of

Snow Belt states infrastructure not designed with winter maintenance in mind. Therefore,

concrete subjected to repeated freezing and thawing in the presence of deicing salts is

important when considering pedestrians safety, vehicular movement, and highway repair

[87].

63

Deicing salts, primarily sodium chloride, calcium chloride have been applied to

the highway infrastructure for winter maintenance since early in this century. In the late

fifties when the Interstate Highway System began to develop, sodium chloride and

calcium chloride became the deicers of choice. Since that time, other chemical deicers

have been used for snow and ice control but, little long-term freeze/thaw cycling testing

and analysis had been undertaken to understand their effect on Portland Cement Concrete

[34].

Concrete is damaged by the application of deicing agents. Sodium chloride and

calcium chloride are the most common deicers used to remove snow and ice from roads,

bridges and other paved surfaces. Their utilization however tends to magnify the

hydraulic and osmotic pressures that develop in frozen concrete, and consequently

increases the potential for deterioration usually in the form of surface scaling [35].

Work conducted by Verbeck and Kleiger [88] had shown that optimum scaling

occurs with relatively low concentrations of salt (2 to 4 percent by weight of solution).

Mechanism of Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Agents: The presence of

deicing chemicals in cement paste can have various effects on pressures induced during

freezing and thawing regimes. Salt has a supercooling effect on the water, i.e. the

temperature of ice formation is reduced. As a result freezing rate is decreased, and the

initial build up of hydraulic pressures, which generally rely on a rapid rate of freezing, is

consequently reduced [36]. Supercooled pore water, however, will eventually freeze with

a higher crystallization velocity (rate of ice front advancement) as the temperature

continues to decrease below 00 0C (32 F) [37]. This in turn, generates a greater magnitude

of hydraulic pressure. In addition, the increased concentration of salt solution in the

larger capillary pores near the concrete’s surface can increase the extent of osmotic

pressure that develops after or during freezing [36].

Other explanations on the mechanisms of deicer salt deterioration of concrete

were given by Harnik et al [89]. Water molecules in the air have a greater tendency to

condense into a salt solution than into water. This hygroscopic property of salts, along

with the newly melted ice on the surface, increases the degree of saturation of concrete

64

and further enhances the detrimental effects of hydraulic and osmotic pressures. Also

harmful to concrete is thermal shock resulting from the dry application of deicing agents

[89].

The heat required to melt snow and ice is extracted mostly from concrete.

Subsequently, through temperature gradients, internal tensile stresses of short duration

can develop, exceeding the tensile strength of concrete. Another consequence of deicer

utilization, even though a minor contributor to scaling deterioration, is the dilation

pressure due to salt crystal growth [90]. Once the solution in the larger pores reaches a

super saturated state (either by evaporation or freezing of water), salt crystallization starts

and salt molecules are drawn from smaller pores into larger ones.

Numerous tests on salt scaling have shown that the extent of damage is sensitive

to the procedure adopted. For instance, air-drying of the concrete after wet curing but

prior to exposure cycles increases the resistance to surface scaling. Moist curing of

sufficient duration for the cement paste to hydrate extensively must however precede the

drying out.

The most severe damage occurs when concrete is subjected to alternating freezing

and thawing with the deicer solution remaining on top of the specimen, rather than being

replaced with fresh water prior to refreezing.

Verbeck and Klieger [88] showed that specimens which were in continuous

contact with moisture scaled much faster than those which were permitted to dry previous

to freeze thaw cycling in the presence of deicers. It is evident, therefore, that the amount

of available freezable moisture is an important factor variable in the deterioration of

concrete by deicers in freeze-thaw environment.

Scaling under freeze conditions is dependent upon the deicer solution

concentration.

Kleiger [91] showed that in 50 cycles of freezing and thawing, solutions of 3% by

weight of deicer produced a higher rate of deterioration than either lower (to 0%) or

higher (to 16%) concentration, regardless of type of deicer (sodium chloride or calcium

chloride, urea, ethyl alcohol). In freeze thaw cycling, it is the temperature change and not

the phase change, which causes the concrete to absorb various concentrations of deicer

solutions.

65

3.1.6 Sulfate Attack on Concrete

When selecting materials for rigid pavements expected to perform for 30 plus

years material interaction with the environment should be considered. First, the

environment to which the pavements will be exposed should be examined. A wide range

of environmental conditions exist that may affect concrete durability. Aggregate, cement,

and admixtures should be selected with respect to their long-term durability.

Sulfates present in soils, groundwater, seawater, decaying organic matter, and

industrial effluent surrounding a concrete structure may permeate the concrete and react

with existing hydration products. These reactions can cause cracks in the concrete

structure [38].

Essentially, two forms of sulfate attack are known to exist:

• Reaction with monosulfate hydrate and calcium aluminate hydrate to produce

ettringite.

• Reaction with calcium hydroxide to produce gypsum; results in a decrease in pore

solution alkalinity.

3.1.6.1 Ettringite Formation by Sulfate Attack

Ettringite is a normal product of cement hydration and persists indefinitely in the

hydration products of many cements. Depending upon the cement composition,

monosulfate hydrate and calcium aluminate hydrate may form as hydration products. In

the presence of calcium hydroxide hydration and water, monosulfate hydrate and calcium

aluminate hydrate react with the sulfate to produce ettringite [38, 39].

3 CaO. Al O + 3 ( CaSO . 2 H O ) + 26 H2 3 4 2 2O 3 CaO. Al O .3 CaSO .32 H O 2 3 4 2 (Ettringite) [40]

In hardened concrete, the formation of ettringite by sulfate attack can, but does

not always, result in expansion and lead to the cracking of concrete. The physical

mechanism by which ettringite causes expansion and cracking is a matter of controversy.

Topochemical formation of ettringite with directional crystal growth and swelling of

ettringite by water adsorption are among the proposed hypotheses. It is generally

accepted that the expansion caused by sulfate attack is the result of a particular

66

mechanism associated with the ettringite reaction, or is the result of reaction other than

the formation of ettringite, such as the formation of gypsum. When a concrete structure is

expected to be exposed to an aggressive sulfate environment, a cement low in C3A, such

as Type II or Type V, is selected to avoid the reaction to form ettringite by sulfate attack

as described above. In addition, proper mix design (i.e., low w/c and use of pozzolans)

and curing are required to produce concrete less permeable to sulfates [38].

Gypsum Formation by Sulfate Attack: Gypsum, in addition to ettringite, can be

produced during sulfate attack through cation exchange reactions. Loss of stiffness and

strength and eventual expansion spalling and cracking are indicative of sulfate attack

through gypsum formation. Depending on the cation type present in the sulfate solution

(i.e., Na+ or Mg2+) both calcium hydroxide and C-S-H (the primary strength-giving

hydration product) in the cement paste may be converted to gypsum (CaSO .2H4 2O) by

sulfate attack. For sodium sulfate attack:

Na SO + Ca(OH)2 4 2 + 2H O → CaSO .2H O + 2NaOH 2 4 2

The formation of sodium hydroxide as a byproduct of the reaction ensures that the

system will remain highly alkaline, which is an essential condition for the stability of C-

S-H.

During magnesium sulfate attack:

MgSO + Ca(OH) + 2H O → CaSO .2H O + Mg(OH)4 2 2 4 2 2

3MgSO + 3CaO.2SiO4 2 .3H O + 8H O → 3(CaSO .2H O) + 3 Mg(OH)2 2 4 2 2 + 2SiO2 .H O 2

Conversion of calcium hydroxide to gypsum is accompanied by formation of magnesium

hydroxide, which is relatively insoluble and poorly alkaline. Therefore, while both forms

of attack will lead to damage by gypsum formation, magnesium sulfate attack is

considered more severe because it will also compromise the stability of the C-S-H.

Field experience has demonstrated that sulfate attack usually manifests itself in

the form of loss of adhesion and strength. It is important to note that the deterioration

most often reported in the field is not caused by ettringite formation, but is due to the

67

decomposition of CH and C-S-H to gypsum by sulfate ions and conversion of these

hydration products to aragonite (presumably due to carbonation) [92].

Proper mix design (i.e., low w/c and use of pozzolans) and curing will produce

concrete less permeable to sulfates. The use of pozzolans will also reduce the amount of

CH in the hydrated cement paste of Portland cements, calcium sulfoaluminate cements,

and fly ash-based cements. Reducing the amount of CH (Calcium Hydroxide) in the

hydrated cement paste will limit the effects of this form of sulfate attack.

Failure Criteria for Sulfate Attack: There is no universally accepted criterion for

failure of concrete exposed to sulfate rich environments. Consequently, a number of

failure criteria can be found in the literature, each distinctly different from the other. This

diversity resulted from different testing methods used by researchers. The source of

(internal/external) the cation types present (Na, Mg, etc.), the concentration of the sulfate

source and the specimen sizes and shapes (beams, cubes, cylinders, etc.) vary from test to

test. Different properties such as strength loss, change in dynamic modulus of elasticity,

expansion (length or volume), loss of mass, and visual assessment have been used to

evaluate sulfate-induced deterioration. Test specimens have been of mortar paste and

concrete. A change in any one of these factors can have significant effects on the

assessment of sulfate attack. With the establishment of standardized test ASTM C 1012

(length change) and acceptance of appropriate limits for these procedures, now findings

are more readily compared with one another. The following paragraph lists some of the

failure criteria proposed for sulfate attack by researchers.

Mather (41), as quoted by Cohen and Mather (42), designated an expansion value

of 0.1% at 28 days for mortars as failure. Mather (42) using a test procedure later

standardized as ASTM C1012 chose 0.1% increase in length as failure criterion for

mortar bars.

Mehta (43) set a failure limit based on strength reduction for cement pastes, with

a drop of strength of more than 25% indicating poor performance. Cohen and Bentur (44)

suggested the following failure limits for pastes: 5% (beam) and 2.5% (cube) loss of

mass, 0.4% expansion, and 25% reduction in strength (based on Mehta’s work).

68

ASTM Subcommittee COI.29 suggested performance limits for mortar bars tested

under ASTM C 1012 at the age of six months. Specimens with the expansion of less than

0.1% are considered to have “Moderate Sulfate Resistance” whereas those with less than

0.05% have “High Sulfate Resistance”.

3.1.7 Chloride Permeability in Concrete

Permeability is defined as the coefficient representing the rate at which water is

transmitted through a saturated specimen of concrete under an externally maintained

hydraulic gradient. Permeability is inversely linked to durability, the lower the

permeability the higher the durability of concrete [45, 46]. Given any combination of

cement and aggregates, it is generally observed that lesser the permeability of concrete is,

the greater will be its resistance to aggressive solutions or distilled water. There appears

to be an optimum cement content for permeability, a too high cement content may

increase the permeability. A comprehensive review of penetration of fluids and ions

through hardened cement paste, mortar and concrete has been given by Whiting [47].

When the pore system is unsaturated, capillary absorption and gas diffusion may

dominate. When the pore system is saturated, a flow of fluid may occur if a sufficiently

high high-pressure head occurs. At normal pressure however, diffusion of ions is the

predominant transport mechanism. For production of concrete with low permeability and

diffusivity, low water-cement ratio, thorough consolidation, good curing, and crack

prevention are key factors. Aggregate type may also be an important factor. As the water-

cement ratio of the concrete decreases, the permeability decreases [48, 49].

Preventing the ingress of chlorides to the reinforcement is one approach to

improve the durability of concrete structure. Much work has been done in measuring

concrete permeability through the steady-state flow of water under a hydraulic gradient

[50], but this was considered somewhat irrelevant to bridge decks, as it presents difficulty

with regard to its application [51]. The main mechanism for transport of chloride ions

through crack free concrete is diffusion. This was demonstrated by several researchers

[52 to 56] using classical diffusion cell. However this method requires considerable time

for completion, since steady-state values are required. Therefore, it is not suitable for the

purpose of rapid test. This led to AASHTO T-277 and ASTM 1202-91 [57].

69

The rapid chloride permeability test (RCPT), designated as AASHTO T-277 in

1983 by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO), was the first ever test proposed for rapid qualitative assessment of chloride

permeability of plain cement concrete [58, 59].

The AASHTO Test Method T 277, “Rapid Determination of Chloride

Permeability of Concrete” was adopted in 1983, and virtually the same test procedure

was designated by the ASTM as C 1202, “Electrical Indication of concrete’s ability to

Resist Chloride Ion Penetration”. In this ASTM test, one surface of a water saturated

concrete specimen is exposed to a sodium chloride solution, and the other surface to a

sodium hydroxide solution. A 60-volt DC electrical potential is placed across the

specimen for a six-hour period. The electrical charge (in coulombs) passed through the

concrete specimen in that time represents its “rapid chloride permeability”. The ease and

speed of this test method has made it more popular compared to the other methods [60].

The AASHTO T 259 90-day ponding test was used to evaluate chloride

penetration of concrete for many years prior to the adaptation of the rapid test (AASHTO

T 277 or ASTM C 1202). Permeability, diffusion and absorption are the important

physical processes controlling chloride penetration into concrete during the 90-day

ponding test; where as electrical resistivity appears to be the primary factor controlling

charge passed through the rapid test. The sensitivity of the two methods to these different

physical processes may cause significant variations in the ranking of permeabilities of

various concretes. As stated in the scope of ASTM C 1202, the rapid test procedure is

applicable to types of concrete in which correlation has been established between this

rapid test procedure and long-term chloride ponding procedures such as AASHTO T 259.

The rapid test method ASTM C 1202 is now commonly required by construction

project specifications for both precast and cast-in-place concrete. An arbitrary value of

less than 1000 coulombs, is typically selected by the engineer or owner. This rating

usually chosen from the scale shown below is characterized as “very low” chloride ion

penetrability (Table 3.1). Trial Mixtures are typically tested to determine if the specified

maximum charge passed can be met [93].

The use of concretes with compressive strengths in excess of 41 Mpa (6000 psi)

began in the 1960’s and has progressed steadily since then. Today, concretes with

70

compressive strengths of 69 Mpa (10000 psi) can be routinely produced [94]. The initial

applications of high strength concretes were in columns of high-rise buildings. The

availability of high-strength concrete made it possible to achieve greater heights, to

reduce column sizes and to provide greater stiffness to buildings. The focus of

applications has now shifted to bridges where potential applications in pre-stressed

concrete are now being pursued. The improved durability, which occurs with low

permeability, has led to broader applications such as design of longer life highways and

parking structures.

Table 3.1 Chloride Permeability Based on charge passed

Charge Passed Chloride Typical of

(coulombs) Permeability

High High water/cement ratio >4000

( > 0.6 ), pcc

2,000 – 4,000 Moderate Moderate water/cement ratio

(0.4 – 0.5), pcc

1,000 –2,000 Low Low water/cement ratio

( < 0.4 ), pcc

100 –1,000 Very Low Latex-modified concrete,

Silica-fume concrete

< 100 Negligible Polymer impregnated concrete

High-strength concrete can be used to increase [95-97] the span length of girders,

reduce the number of girders required in a given bridge or allow for the use off shallower

sections. The use of high-strength high performance concrete in bridge girders has,

generally, reduced the number of girders required for a given span length or has resulted

in the ability to increase span lengths.

71

When high strength concretes were produced from the basic ingredients of

cement, aggregates and water, the maximum achievable compressive strength was limited

to 62 Mpa (9000 psi). However, with the availability of mineral admixtures in the form of

fly ash, slag, and silica fume, and with the advent of high-range water-reducing agents,

compressive strengths as high as 135 Mpa (20,000 psi) can now be achieved with

concretes that are easy to place.

High performance concrete (HPC) is any concrete that has one or more of its

attributes enhanced beyond the ordinary concrete to meet the performance need for a

specific application [98]. Examples of characteristics that may be considered critical for

an application are ease of placement, compaction without segregation, early age strength,

long term mechanical properties, permeability, density, heat of hydration, toughness,

volume stability, long life in severe environments.

Because many characteristics of high performance concrete are interrelated, a

change in one usually results in changes in one or more of the other characteristics.

Consequently, if several characteristics have to be taken into account in producing

concrete for the intended application, each of these characteristics must be clearly

specified.

HPC has many useful applications and potential benefits to the highway industry,

Which include:

• Better performance and service life of highway facilities.

• Less maintenance, because of enhanced concrete durability.

• Lower life-cycle cost.

• Less construction time, as in repairs and fast track constructions.

• Higher productivity and quality of pre-cast and prestressed products.

• Less consumption of materials and more conservation of resources

High-performance concrete for bridges is a new approach to concrete materials

engineering which places increased emphasis on both strength and durability. Although

compressive strength has typically been the main consideration in concrete mix design,

specified compressive strengths are usually much lower than what can be currently

achieved. In addition, durability concerns have often been limited to providing protection

from freeze-thaw deterioration.

72

The durability of concrete depends largely on its ability to resist the penetration of

water and aggressive compounds. Four major types [99] of environmental distress occur

in reinforced concrete: corrosion of reinforcement, alkali aggregate reactivity, freeze-

thaw deterioration, and attack by sulfates. Corrosion of steel occurs most extensively.

In each case, water or solutions penetrating the concrete initiate or accelerate the

distress, making costly repairs necessary. Air-entrained concretes with low permeability

are required to resist the infiltration of harmful solutions and provide the necessary

durability when exposed to the environment [100]. Low-permeability concretes perform

better in severe environments than ordinary Portland cement concretes (PCC) and can be

categorized as high-performance concretes (HPC).

3.1.8 Alkali-aggregate reactivity (AAR)

Alkali reactive sands or coarse aggregates, when used in concrete structures,

produce severe deterioration. It is known that certain internal reactions between the

cement alkalis and aggregates cause harmful expansions. It is also understood that highly

variable expansions develop within the concrete in the long term because of alkali silica

reactions (ASR). The ASR expansion is characterized by the production of a gel-like

reaction product. ASR occurs in the concrete structures when these requirements are met.

• Reactive forms of silica or silicate in the aggregates

• Sufficient alkali (sodium and potassium) primarily available from the cement

• Sufficient moisture available in the concrete.

If one of these requirements is not met, then the expansion due to ASR may not occur.

The potential ASR problem has gained a lot of attention from the Department of

Transportation, product suppliers, and state highway departments in every state. Even

though this problem has had worldwide attention for the past 60 years, effective measures

for inhibiting the alkali-aggregate and alkali-silica reactions have not been found till now.

It is important to find out such measures for improving the durability of concrete

structures.

In order to prevent these deleterious expansions the following options are

available.

73

• To use low alkali cement

• To avoid reactive aggregates and

• To partially replace cement with fly ash

Low alkali cements have been used nation-wide to mitigate AAR in concrete.

However it is known that low alkali cements have also been associated with severe AAR

in pavements because of the deicing salts used in highways, which increases the total

available alkali in concrete.

The depletion of good quality aggregate near construction sites has created a need

to develop methods that will permit the successful use of marginal aggregates.

Stanton (1942) [61] first recognized the alkali-aggregate reaction, and since then,

many researchers and scientists have contributed towards a better understanding of the

phenomena of AAR. Even though the construction industry was not fully aware of the

impact of AAR in the forties, researchers [62 to 65] had fully recognized the impending

disaster that would be caused by AAR. Investigations had shown that argillaceous

limestone and cherts had been causing a serious menace to durability in many regions.

Because of its concern with design, construction and maintenance of hundreds of

concrete structures, the Bureau of Reclamation had realized the importance of research

directed towards the discovery of the causes for the deterioration phenomena, and means

of controlling it. In 1940, a research program was initiated in the Denver Laboratories to

provide this information. A number of other agencies also took part in this program. Even

though significant understanding of the phenomena was achieved through the

investigations, the problem was not solved fully. However at that stage, it was concluded

that the deterioration of concrete due to AAR is due to the chemical reaction between the

aggregates and the constituents of the Portland cement [62 to 65]. Petrography

examination of concrete, chemical analysis of gel samples taken from various concrete

structures, physical methods, and metallographic microscopes were utilized in the study

of the AAR phenomena [63 to 65].

In the past, only a few researchers were concerned about the problem of AAR.

Now with the recognition of the deterioration of concrete structures in many parts of the

world due to AAR, the situation has changed dramatically. Presently, AAR has become

one of the primary concerns of the engineering community.

74

Causes of Alkali-aggregate reaction: The alkali-aggregate reaction (AAR) is due to the

chemical reaction between the alkalis (sodium and potassium) present in the cement and

certain minerals present in the aggregates that are used in concrete. Abundant field and

laboratory experience has demonstrated that the alkalis released during hydration of high

alkali Portland cement react with certain rocks and minerals of aggregates. These

reactions produce a gel and result in the deterioration of concrete. The factors

contributing to the reaction are the presence of sufficient alkali, availability of moisture

and the presence of potentially reactive silica [101].

Basic concepts of alkali-aggregate reactivity and expansion mechanisms: The micro-

pores in the matrix of hardened concrete are filled with a highly basic (i.e., pH > 12.5)

fluid that consists mainly of dissolved alkali hydroxides of potassium and sodium with

minor amounts of other elements (e.g., Ca+2 -2, SO4 ) (Diamond) [102]. Some mineral

phases within the coarse and (or) fine aggregates in concrete are chemically unstable and

react deleteriously in such high pH environment, sometimes inducing the premature

distress (i.e., internal expansion, cracking, loss in serviceability) of the affected element.

This phenomenon is known as alkali-aggregate reactions (AAR). Two types of AAR are

generally recognized: (1) alkali-carbonate reaction (ACR), and (2) alkali-silica reaction

(ASR); they differ in the type of mineral phases and mechanisms involved.

Alkali-carbonate reaction: The first case of ACR was reported in the late 1950s in

Ontario, Canada (Swenson) [103]. Typically, argillaceous dolomitic limestones

susceptible to ACR petrographically consist of rhombic crystals of dolomite, 20 to 50 μm

in size, disseminated in a matrix of microcrystalline calcite (typically 2 to 6 μm in size)

and clay minerals (< 2 μm in size). Under the attack by the alkali hydroxides of the

concrete pore fluid, the dolomite crystals undergo a dedolomitization process shown

below, thus opening channels through which ions from the pore fluid can penetrate

deeper in the reacting particles.

CaMg(CO ) + 2(Na,K)OH → Mg(OH) + CaCO3 2 2 3 + (Na,K) CO2 3

75

{Dolomite + alkali hydroxides → brucite + calcite + alkali carbonates}

Expansions and cracking of the concrete undergoing ACR basically originates

from the expansion of individual reacting coarse limestone aggregate particles, possibly

through one or more combinations of the following process (Tang et al) [191 to 192],

(Gillott ) [104]:

• Hydraulic pressures caused by the migration of water molecules and alkali ions in

the restricted spaces of the calcite/clay matrix around dolomite rhombs

• Adsorption of alkali ions and water molecules on the surface of the active clay

minerals scattered around the dolomite grains

• Growth and rearrangement of products of dedolomitization (i.e., brucite and

calcite)

The alkali carbonates react eventually with the Portlandite in concrete matrix thus

regenerating alkali hydroxides in the pore solution as show in (2)

(2) (Na,K)2CO + Ca(OH) → CaCO + 2(Na,K)OH 3 2 3

{Alkali carbonates + Portlandite → calcite + alkali hydroxides}

This suggests that ACR could proceed almost indefinitely. Aggregates susceptible

to ACR are generally found to induce rapid and extensive expansion and cracking in

concrete prism test and deleterious expansion and cracking within three years in the field

when other conditions essential for ACR are present (Rogers et al) [105].

Alkali-silica reaction (ASR) : Cases of concrete distress due to ASR have been reported

worldwide. The problem is fundamentally related to the increased solubility/instability of

amorphous, disordered, poorly micro- or crypto-crystalline forms of silica in high pH

solutions. Two categories of ASR are recognized according to the silica form involved

(Fournier and Berube ) [106]

• Rock types incorporating poorly crystalline or meta-stable silica minerals, e.g.,

opal, tridymite, cristobalite, and volcanic glasses. Concrete elements made with

aggregates incorporating such silica minerals, even in lesser amounts (1 to 2%)

76

may suffer extensive expansion and cracking within few years after construction

when other conditions for AAR exist.

• Quartz-bearing rocks incorporating very fine grained quartz or some varieties of

macro granular quartz. This type is characterized by a delay in the onset of

expansion and cracking of concrete that can take from 10 to even 25 years to

manifest itself significantly in the field when other conditions essential for AAR

are present.

The mechanisms of reaction/expansion for most of the alkali-silica reactive

aggregates can be summarized as follows:

Under the attack by the alkali hydroxides, microcrystalline quartz within the

aggregate particles progressively transforms into a viscous reaction product called

“alkali-silica gel”. Localized differences in free energy would then induce water and

various ionic species in the pore fluid to flow into the gel. Since the gel is first restrained

to spread freely into the cement paste, tensile stresses build up and cracking occurs when

the pressure generated at localized sites of expansive reaction exceeds the tensile strength

of the aggregate particles and of the cement paste. Once extensive micro cracking has

occurred, the gel spreads out freely through the cracks in the cement paste, where it

progressively loses its expansive properties by the incorporation of calcium through an

ion-exchange process with hydrates (Ca (OH) , CSH) of the paste. 2

Prezzi et al [107-108] have discussed in detail about the ASR product gels

produced due to swelling caused by electrical double-layer repulsive forces.Mitchell and

Leming [109] conducted a study on quantity of alkali-silica gel and its effect on concrete

properties based on the tests at varying ages on twenty bridges in North Carolina.

77

3.1.8.1 Conditions conducive to alkali-aggregate reactivity

Effect of aggregates: A reactive aggregate must be present with all other parameters

concerning concrete mixture proportioning being constant. The reactivity level of alkali-

silica reactive aggregates generally increases with (1) increasing amount of

microcrystalline quartz within individual rock particles, (2) increasing amount of reactive

particles in the aggregate and decreasing aggregate particle size. Some fine and coarse

aggregates with rock particles incorporating opal or crypto crystalline quartz as reactive

constituents (e.g., some opaline shalestone, flint, porous chert) display a pessimum effect,

i.e., a maximum expansion is obtained for a given proportion and (or) size fraction of

such reactive particles.

Monteiro et al. [110] have suggested that ASR depends on more factors than

simply crystallinity of quartz. Deformed granitic rocks provided a good system to

quantify these parameters. Further the texture analysis of these rocks indicated that there

was no quantitative relationship between the degree of deformation and reactivity. +Effect of alkali hydroxides: Na , K+-OH- in the pore fluid is the driving force for AAR.

This generally a function of the alkali content of the cement used [111]. The expansion of

concrete incorporating aggregates generally increases with increasing total alkali content

in the concrete (expressed as Na2O equivalent); however, the threshold total alkali

content in concrete necessary to initiate and sustain expansive or deleterious ASR varies

from one aggregate to another.

Alkalis from sources other than the cement in concrete, e.g., aggregates (alkali-

bearing minerals such as zeolites, dawsonite (Gillott and Rogers) [112], alkali

feldspars/feldspathoids, unwashed sea dredged sands (Hobbs) [113]), chemical

admixtures (e.g., superplasticizers), mixture water, and high-alkali fly ashes (Duchesne

and Berube) [114] can also contribute in raising the (Na+, K+-OH-) in the pore fluid, thus

increasing the risk of distress due to AAR in the presence of reactive aggregates.

Migration of alkalis through various processes such as local surface evaporation,

electric/magnetic fields or currents (Ozol) [115], cathodic protection (Shayan and Song)

[116], may locally increase the (Na+, K+-OH-) in the concrete pore fluid, thus

contributing in anisotropic reaction/expansion and deterioration in/of the element

affected.

78

Bellew [117, 118] showed from his laboratory tests that alkali contents of pore

solutions in concrete cores taken from Saunders generating station were higher than the

estimated value. The excess alkali in the pore solution could possibly have been derived

from the clay minerals in the limestone aggregate. The results of this investigation

indicated that the amount of leachable alkali would probably be sufficient to account for

the enhanced alkali contents in the pore solution in concrete cores from the structure.

Effect of Moisture: Alkali-aggregate reactivity typically develops or sustains in concrete

elements with internal relative humidity greater than 80-85%. As indicated before, the

alkali-silica gel needs water to swell and exert disruptive expansive pressure on the

concrete. Laboratory investigations have shown that partially dehydrated gel due to

partial drying of the specimen can be re-hydrated and re-expanded if additional water is

supplied to the specimen; however, dried and carbonated gels are unlikely to regain their

expansive properties.

Thin concrete elements are unlikely to be deleteriously affected by AAR when

exposed to indoor or outdoor constantly dry conditions (i.e., with no external supply of

moisture) or when immersed in fresh or sea water because of the leaching of alkalis or the

dilution of [Na+, K+-OH-] from the concrete pore fluid. On the other hand, massive

concrete elements incorporating a reactive aggregate are often at risk of AAR, even those

kept indoors or in arid desert conditions, because of the high internal humidity conditions

maintained in such elements (Stark and Depuy) [119].

Field and laboratory investigations have shown that surface treatment of thin

concrete elements with some silanes and siloxanes can effectively limit the ingress of

moisture and reduce relative humidity inside such elements, with significant reduction in

ASR expansion rates and better external appearance of the treated elements (Berube et

al.) [120, 121].

Environmental conditions: Concrete elements undergoing AAR and exposed to cyclic

exposure to sun, rain, and wind or portions of concrete piles in tidal zones often show

severe surface cracking because of induced tension cracking in the “less expansive”

surface layer under the expansive thrust of the inner concrete core [119]. Berube [122]

79

performed laboratory experiments on concrete cylinders (9255 mm in diameter and 310

mm long) incorporating a highly-reactive aggregate and subjected to different

combinations of exposure conditions and showed: (1) test cylinders subjected to wetting

and drying cycles expanded significantly less but showed more extensive surface

cracking than those constantly stored at 100% R.H. and 38oC, and (2) test cylinders

exposed to freezing and thawing cycles expanded significantly more and showed more

surface macro cracking than those constantly stored at 100% R.H., and 38oC.

Surface cracking due to the AAR can accelerate the overall deterioration of

concrete through processes such as corrosion of reinforcing bars, freezing and thawing,

and sulfate attack; on the other hand, AAR can itself be induced or accelerated once a

concrete element incorporating potentially reactive aggregates has cracked due to one or

many of the above deleterious mechanisms.

Concrete permeability and water-to-cement ratio: The availability of moisture is

critical to the development of deleterious or excessive expansion due to AAR. A lower

water-to-cement ratio (w/c) in concrete generally leads to improved mechanical

properties, lower internal free water content, lower concrete permeability, and reduced

ingress/movement of moisture inside the concrete.

Numerous cases of ASR in hydraulic dams were reported involving mass

concretes with low cement factors, and high w/c and permeability characteristics. In these

elements, reaction rates are generally slow but the excess hydration water is likely present

in sufficient amounts to sustain AAR for prolonged periods of time (Stark) [123].

Reinforcement and other restraints: Steel reinforcement or other restraint arising from

applied compressive stress ranging from 1 to 4 Mpa may reduce significantly and even

control ASR expansion in concrete (Swamy) [124]. However, surface cracking due to

AAR is often not significantly reduced by the use of internal or external restraint. Well-

anchored and confined reinforcement will post-tension the concrete undergoing

expansion due to AAR; however, stresses caused by ASR can be large enough to cause

bond and shear failures between concrete and reinforcement in the case of improperly

detailed reinforced concrete members [124].

80

Ahmed et al. [125] have discussed the effect of ASR on the bearing capacity of

plain and reinforced concrete. It was found that the bearing capacity was more affected

by ASR and change in loading geometry than by changes in any other variable.

Temperature, heat of hydration, and temperature gradients: Several laboratory

investigations have shown that increasing temperature increases AAR reaction/expansion

rates but may result in lower ultimate expansion [113]. Massive concrete elements may

be relatively more at risk regarding AAR because of the time required to dissipate the

heat resulting from cement hydration. Also, high temperature gradients generated at early

ages in massive concrete elements can generate micro cracking, with the risk of

accelerating moisture ingress and consequently the development of AAR.

3.1.9 Drying Shrinkage in Concrete

Shrinkage is seemingly a simple phenomenon of contraction of concrete upon loss

of water. Strictly speaking, shrinkage is a three dimensional deformation, but it is usually

expressed as a linear strain because in the majority of exposed concrete elements one or

two dimensions are much smaller than the third dimension, and the effect of shrinkage is

greatest in the largest dimension. In common usage, the term shrinkage is a shorthand

expression for drying shrinkage of hardened concrete exposed to air with a relative

humidity of less than just under l00 percent [126]. The loss of moisture from concrete

after it hardens, and hence, drying shrinkage, is inevitable unless the concrete is

submerged in water or is in an environment with 100% relative humidity (RH). Thus,

drying shrinkage is a phenomenon that routinely occurs and merits careful consideration

in concrete design and construction.

Drying shrinkage is defined as the time dependent volume reduction due to loss of

water at constant relative humidity and temperature. The driving force for drying

shrinkage is evaporation of water from capillary pores in hydrated cement paste at their

ends, which are exposed to air with a relative humidity lower than that within the

capillary pores. The water in the capillary pores called the free water is held by forces.

81

These forces are stronger, when the diameters of the capillary pores are smaller.

Therefore the loss of water is progressive at a decreasing rate [69].

Factors contributing to drying shrinkage: This may be categorized as, mixture

composition, curing conditions, ambient exposure conditions, and element geometry.

With respect to mixture compositions, the influence of aggregate type, cement type and

fineness, cement and water content, and mineral and chemical admixtures will be

addressed.

The lesser water there is in the mix, the lesser will be the evaporation after curing

and consequently less drying shrinkage is to be expected. The drying shrinkage may

roughly decrease at a rate about 30 microstrain per 5.9 kg/m3 (10 lbs./cu.yd) [56].

Water content: Charles K.Nmai et al. [238] have found that the total water content of a

concrete mix has a significant effect on drying shrinkage. For a concrete mix, which had

cement content of 420 kg/m3 (708 lbs./cu.yd.) and a water cement ratio (w/c) of 0.45-that

is water content of about 190 kg/m3 (320 lbs./cu.yd.); the drying shrinkage was 0.06

percent. They had observed a 50 percent reduction in shrinkage by reducing the water

content to 145 kg/m3 (244 lb./cu.yd.). Therefore to minimize the drying shrinkage of

concrete, the total water content must be kept as low as possible. Aggregates: Aggregates influence the drying shrinkage in two different ways: first, the

use of a high coarse aggregate content will minimize the total water and paste contents of

the concrete mix and therefore, drying shrinkage. The effects of aggregate cement ratio

and w/c ratio on drying shrinkage have shown that, at a given w/c ratio, drying shrinkage

is reduced as the aggregate-cement ratio is increased. With a w/c ratio of 0.40, a 50

percent reduction in drying shrinkage was obtained when the aggregate-cement ratio was

increased from 3 and 5 [127]. In a similar study conducted by Neville, he has concluded

that increasing the aggregate content (especially the coarse particles) will decrease

shrinkage, while increasing the amounts of water and cement in the mix will result in an

increase in shrinkage [128].

Secondly, certain aggregates yield to the pressure from the shrinkage paste and do

not provide sufficient restraint against the shrinkage of the paste. It is emphasized that the

82

elastic modulus, creep and shrinkage are also affected by the stiffness of the aggregate

[129]. The use of sandstone and slate should be avoided if low shrinkage is desired.

Krauss and Rogalla [130] reported that aggregate type has the most significant effect on

cracking in the tests, where river rounded gravel concrete cracked earlier compared to

crushed limestone concrete. Purvis and Babaei [131] observed that use of soft aggregates

such as sandstone tends to result in an increase in drying shrinkage and that the use of

hard aggregate such as quartz, dolomite and limestone tends to result in decreased

shrinkage.

Admixtures: In a research conducted by Rixon and Mailvagabam [132] the effect of

admixture on concrete shrinkage appears to depend on the type and dosage of admixture

and the method of addition (i.e., direct addition or addition with simultaneous reductions

in either cement or water content). Chemical admixtures will tend to increase shrinkage

unless they are used in such a way as to reduce the evaporable water content of the mix,

in which case the shrinkage will be reduced. Air-entraining agents, however, seem to

have little effect [133]. Based on a study by Charles K Nmai [127] reduced drying

shrinkage has been obtained with the use of a naphthalene condensate-based HRWR

admixture. A proven water reducer [134] should be used to minimize the water content

and provide the optimum placing consistency. An HRWR with a history of success on

similar projects can reduce water content from 18% to 30%. This water reduction will

result in significant shrinkage reduction. Hiroshi Tokuda, et al., stated that an 18% water

reduction resulted in 12% reduction in shrinkage.

Cement type: The effects of cement type are generally negligible except as rate-of-

strength-gain changes. Even here the interdependence of several factors makes it difficult

to isolate causes. Rapid hardening cement gains strength more rapidly than ordinary

cement but shrinks somewhat more than other types, primarily due to an increase in the

water demand with increasing fineness. Shrinkage compensating cements can be used to

minimize shrinkage cracking if they are used with appropriate restraining reinforcement

[134].

According to Nijad. I. Fatuhi and Husain Al-Khaiat [135] the type of cement used

in the concrete influenced the initial swelling and the maximum drying shrinkage. White

83

cement concrete exhibited the least initial swelling and drying shrinkage, followed by

concrete containing sulfate resisting cement, and then by concrete containing ordinary

Portland cement.

In their parametric study, Krauss and Rogalla [130] examined stresses for more

than 18000 scenarios (hypothetical bridges). They concluded that stresses that cause

transverse cracking are largely due to shrinkage and changing bridge temperature and to a

lesser extent due to traffic. Based on their study, Krauss and Rogalla [130] proposed the

following recommendations in the three categories of design, material selection, and

construction techniques.

They considered material properties as the most important factor affecting

transverse cracking. They also recommend the use of low cement content, large aggregate

content, crushed aggregate, aggregate with low thermal expansion, low modulus of

elasticity and high conductivity, use of type II and IV and shrinkage compensating

cement and water reducing admixtures. Long-term shrinkage reductions, with no curing

applied, ranged from 25% to 38%, depending on cement combination used.

Purvis and Babaei [131] conducted laboratory experiments to investigate effects

of aggregate source, cement source and type, and fly ash on shrinkage. A total of 10

different mixes were tested in this part of the study. Results from the tests on various

cement mixes showed that cement source and type had a significant effect on drying

shrinkage.

One of the two identical mixes, both with type I cement but with different

sources, showed nearly twice the drying shrinkage compared to the other. Furthermore,

the experiments showed the effect of the type of cement, type II cement showed lower

shrinkage in comparison to other types. Also, the experiments showed the effect of the

cement type on heat of hydration and thermal shrinkage. The source of cement (i.e.

different brand names) is an important factor and that the type II cement results in less

temperature increase than type I cement. Fly ash tests were inconclusive because of

limited number of tests.

84

3.1.10 Creep and Shrinkage in Concrete

Creep is the time-dependent increase in strain of hardened concrete subjected to

sustained stress [72]. As defined, creep does not include any immediate elastic strains

caused by loading or any shrinkage or swelling caused by moisture changes [73]. It is

usually determined by subtracting, from the total measured strain in a loaded specimen,

the sum of the initial instantaneous strain (usually considered elastic) due to sustained

stress, the shrinkage, and any thermal strain in an identical load-free specimen, subjected

to the same history of relative humidity and temperature conditions [72]. If the sustained

load is removed, the strain decreases immediately by an amount equal to the elastic strain

at the given age; this is generally lower than the elastic strain on loading since the elastic

modulus has increased in the intervening period. This instantaneous recovery is followed

by a gradual decrease in strain, called creep recovery. This recovery is not complete

because creep is not simply a reversible phenomenon [73].

Creep is closely related to shrinkage and both phenomena are related to the

hydrated cement paste. As a rule, a concrete that is resistant to shrinkage also has a low

creep potential. The principal parameter influencing creep is the load intensity as a

function of time; however, creep is also influenced by the composition of the concrete,

the environmental conditions, and the size of the specimen [72].

It was also shown that the load induced time dependent deformations of concrete

are largely attributed to movement of capillary and absorbed water within the concrete

system, movement of water, the environment, and development and propagation of

internal micro cracks [136].

The rate and magnitude of creep strain associated with the first two process would

depend on the relative volume of pores and spaces in the cement gel, and on the amount

of water occupying these pores at the time of loading [74]. Specimens with higher water

cement ratio will have capillary porosity of cement paste, as well as adsorbed water, and

therefore will have larger final creep [75]. However, at early ages, water in capillary

pores will move first, then followed by the movement of adsorbed water, the creep due to

the later process may commence relatively earlier for specimen with low water cement

ratio and thus may result in somewhat greater earlier creep [74].

85

Ali and Kesler [76] expressed the creep as a function of the degree of hydration of

cement paste in terms of a compliance factor. It is suggested that the effects of

temperature on the creep of Portland cement concrete was caused mainly by the physical

changes of the liquid paste of the gel.

One study shows that there is little influence on creep of variation in cement

content at fixed free w/c ratio. However at the highest cement (and therefore water)

content tested, creep strain was almost double that measured for the other mixes. This

may be attributed to the greater proportion of paste and reduced proportion of aggregate

in the mix, i.e. similar effects of those for drying shrinkage [137].

Strength of concrete has a considerable influence on creep and within a wide

range; creep is inversely proportional to the strength of concrete at the time of application

of load. From this it follows that creep is closely related to the water/cement ratio. There

is no doubt that the modulus of elasticity of aggregate controls the amount of creep that

can be realized and concretes made with different aggregates exhibit creep of varying

magnitudes [73].

3.1.11 Freeze Thaw Resistance of Concrete

In winter, concrete is exposed to temperature cycles where water freezes to ice

and ice melts to water. This is known as freezing and thawing. Damage of concrete under

repeated cycles of freezing and thawing (frost attack) is a major problem of durability.

Concrete subjected to repeated cycles of freezing and thawing may deteriorate rapidly, or

it may remain in service for many years without showing any signs of distress. Failure of

the material may take the form of loss of strength, crumbling, or some combination of the

two. Concrete in a wet environment like bridge piers, pavements near oceans, wharves,

and offshore structures, for example are very vulnerable. Appropriate mix designs and

good engineering practice can produce concrete that is durable under severe climatic

conditions [77].

Hydraulic Pressure: Water in the capillary pores of the cement paste expands upon

freezing. If the required volume is greater than the space available, the pressure of

86

expansion drives off the excess water. The magnitude of this hydraulic pressure depends

on the permeability of the cement paste, the degree of saturation, the distance to the

nearest unfilled void, and the rate of freezing. If the pressure exceeds the tensile strength

of the paste at any point, it will cause local cracking. In repeated cycles of freezing and

thawing in wet environment water will enter the cracks during the thawing portion of the

cycle only to freeze again later, and there will be progressive deterioration with each

cycle [77].

Ice Accretion: Even when the hydraulic pressure is not great enough to damage the

paste, pressure may build up because of the ice accumulation in the capillary pores.

Water in the gel pores is under the influence of surface forces and thus does not freeze

until the temperature drops to the point at which it can freeze with the extremely fine

radius of curvature associated with the gel pores. Cordon [78] gave a freezing

temperature of –780 C (-1080 F) for the water in the gel pores; in practical situations

water will remain liquid as long as it remains in the gel. At 00 C (320 F), the ice in the

capillaries is in equilibrium with the water in the gel pores. As the temperature drops, the

gel water becomes super cooled, but since it has a higher free energy than the ice in the

capillaries, it can flow into the capillaries to freeze. In this manner, ice accumulates in the

capillaries, eventually exerting pressure on the capillary walls. Near the bottom of the

frozen zone of concrete, water can be transported into the gel pores and then into the ice.

This is similar to one of the mechanisms underlying “frost–heave” of soils, and it may

play a role in damaging concrete under certain conditions. The net effect on the concrete

is a loss of volume due to the loss of gel water and a potential increase of volume in the

capillary pores. When the concrete thaws, some of the melt water may return to the gel

pores, but the process is not completely reversible. It is important to note that the failure

by hydraulic pressure and failure by ice accretion occur under different circumstances.

Hydraulic pressures will be greatest (and therefore most likely to cause damage) when

the rate of freezing is rapid. Ice accretion, on the other hand, progresses with time and is

more likely to cause damage if the concrete remains frozen for an extended period.

87

3.1.11.1 Factors affecting Durability of Concrete in Freezing and Thawing

Air Entrainment: The greatest single factor in the durability of concrete in freezing and

thawing is the presence of a system of well-distributed air voids in the paste. In

discussing the durability of concrete specimens tested under conditions of severe natural

exposure, Cook [145] states, “Well-made concrete containing good quality materials will

not ordinarily withstand the exposure for more than one winter unless the concrete

contains proper amounts of entrained air.” It is believed that air voids reduce the

hydraulic pressure due to freezing by providing a place where the water flowing out of

the capillary pores can freeze. Hydraulic pressure increases with distance from a void.

Within a certain radius of the void, the pressure is less than the tensile strength of the

paste. The space enclosed by this radius may be thought of as a zone of protection for the

paste. When the air voids are properly distributed, these zones overlap and there is no

location where the hydraulic pressure can increase to the point of damaging the paste.

During long periods of freezing, ice can accumulate in the air voids without danger of

building up excessive pressure. The maximum acceptable air-void spacing factor is

normally taken to be 0.20 mm (0.008 in) and air content required to achieve this spacing

is usually in the range of four to six percent by volume of concrete, depending on the

volume of the paste in the concrete.

Water-cement ratio: Air entrainment alone does not ensure durability. The water

cement ratio of the concrete also influences durability in several ways. A low water

cement ratio makes the paste stronger and better able to withstand the tensile stresses

imposed by hydraulic pressure or ice accretion. It reduces the amount of freezable water

initially present in the paste. It also makes the paste less permeable, an advantage in a wet

environment where, over time, water will continue to migrate into the concrete. The

lower the permeability, the longer it takes for the saturation to reach a critical level.

Aggregate: Like the cement paste, the aggregate particles may be subject to internal

hydraulic pressure. Aggregates that become saturated must accommodate the expansion

of freezing water either by expelling the excess or expanding. Aggregate normally has

greater tensile strength than hydrated cement paste, thus it may not fracture, but its

88

expansion will cause distress in the surrounding paste. In general, it is best to avoid using

highly absorptive aggregate. Laboratory freeze- thaw tests can indicate the influence of a

particular aggregate on durability, but it is important to test samples of concrete and not

rely on tests of the aggregate alone [146].

Curing: The greater the degree of hydration, the less freezable water is present in the

pore structure and the greater is the tensile strength of the hydrated paste. Therefore, it is

best to allow adequate time for curing before the concrete is subjected to freezing.

Accelerating the cure by using steam will result in an altered pore structure, and under

such conditions the capillary pores are thought to be less finely divided than in concrete

cured at room temperature [147]. Thus for a given mix design cured at elevated

temperatures, more freezable water will be present. In addition, if the concrete is allowed

to dry out before being subjected to freezing, it will be less susceptible to damage than if

it were to remain saturated after curing.

Effect of Aggregates on Freezing and Thawing of Concrete:

The freeze-thaw resistance of an aggregate, especially important in exterior concrete, is

related to its porosity, absorption, permeability, and pore structure. Steven and William

[151] described this physical deterioration as follow:

An aggregate particle might absorb so much water that it could not accommodate

the expansion and hydraulic pressure that occurred during the freezing of water. The

result was expansion of the aggregate and possible disintegration of the concrete.

Generally the offending aggregate was coarse rather than fine aggregate particles with

higher porosity values and medium-sized pores 0.1 – 0.5mm (0.003 – 0.019 in.) that were

easily saturated and caused concrete deterioration and popouts. Larger pores did not

usually become saturated or cause distress, and water in very fine pores did not freeze

readily.

Neville [152] also indicated that pores smaller than 4 to 5 mm (0.157 to 0.196 in.)

were critical, because they are large enough to permit water to enter but not large enough

89

to allow easy drainage under the pressure of ice. This pressure, in fully confined space at

-20°C (-4 0 F), can be as high as 199.9 MPa (29,000 psi).

One of the most critical problems related to the freeze-thaw resistance of an

aggregate is the D-cracking, which is a function of the pore properties of a certain types

of aggregate particles and the environment. This problem can be reduced either by

selecting aggregates that perform better in freeze-thaw cycles or, where marginal

aggregates must be used, by reducing the maximum particle size [152].

Several recent studies on the freeze-thaw durability of air-entrained concrete for

marine and arctic construction had been conducted. Moukwa [153] tested concrete with

w/c = 0.44 and 4% air in both fresh and seawater. Two laboratory procedures were used,

one simulating the field freeze-thaw conditions the concrete undergoes in the tidal zone

and the other similar to ASTM C 666, Procedure A. The results of the study suggested

that surface effects would probably play an important role in the deterioration of concrete

under arctic conditions. Whiting and Burg [154] tested high-strength lightweight

concretes produced from two different lightweight aggregate sources subjected to a

variety of freezing and thawing test procedures and conditioning methods. The concrete

strengths ranged from 54 to 73 MPa (7,700 to 10,400 psi) and their unit weight varied

from 1,920 to 2080 kg/m3 3 (120 to 130 lbs/ft ). Silica fume, fly ash, and GGBS (Ground

Granulated Blast Furnace Slag) were used in the different mixtures. The high strength

lightweight concretes exhibited excellent performance with virtually no degradation

during the standard freeze thaw testing. Prolonged exposure was needed to cause

significant damage under simulated arctic offshore conditions. Durability was found to be

a strong function of cumulative freezing and thawing cycles and moisture content, with

saturation of aggregates prior to test leading to premature failure

Durability of Concrete with Combined Graded Aggregate

The strength aspects of optimized aggregate gradation had been studied by

Shilstone [11]. The study by Shilstone was limited to only optimization of aggregate

gradation and not of cement content in concrete. The effect of optimized aggregate

90

gradation on the durability aspects of concrete had never been studied by any researchers

nor reported.

3.1.12 Concrete Plastic Shrinkage Reduction Potential

The origin of plastic shrinkage and plastic shrinkage induced cracks has been investigated

by many researchers during the last four decades, but no generally accepted theory could

be found in the literature. In order to estimate the risk of cracking of fresh concrete

exposed to certain climatic conditions, a complete understanding of the process of plastic

shrinkage is necessary [173].

Plastic shrinkage cracking results from a volume change of concrete while the

concrete is still in a semi fluid or plastic state. The volume change of concrete at a very

early stage can be divided into four distinct phases.

Phase I: Plastic settlement – Prior to drying, the spaces between particles of freshly

mixed concrete are completely water-filled. When concrete is placed, the solid particles

start to settle and water rises or bleeds, forming a layer of surface water. At this stage, the

concrete volume change is very small, and it is mainly caused by plastic settlement.

Phase II: Primary plastic shrinkage or bleeding contraction – Concrete surface water will

evaporate in hot, windy weather. When the rate of evaporation exceeds the rate of

bleeding (water rising to the surface), the concrete mixture will begin to shrink. This

shrinkage can occur before and/or during concrete setting, and is presumably attributed to

the pressure that develops in the capillary pores of concrete during evaporation. Under an

evaporative condition, water between the surfaces of solids (cement and aggregate

particles) in a plastic concrete forms a complicated system of menisci due to capillary

action. This generates capillary pressure within the concrete that, in turn, reduces the

distance between the concrete solid particles, causing the concrete to become compacted

or shrunken, this shrinkage, called primary plastic shrinkage, can reach a few thousands

of microstrains.

91

Phase III: Autogeneous shrinkage – As cement hydrates, hydration products form around

the cement particles and fill up the water-filled spaces between solid particles in concrete.

As hydration proceeds, the hydration products develop into a network that bonds all loose

aggregate particles together. Consequently, the role of capillary action becomes less

important. As the rate of cement hydration increases, plastic settlement and bleeding

contraction decrease, and autogeneous shrinkage (shrinkage without water loss) develops.

When concrete is in plastic state, the amount of autogeneous shrinkage is generally small,

less than a few hundred microstrain. The majority of autogeneous shrinkage takes place

after concrete setting.

Phase IV: Secondary plastic shrinkage – During this stage, the concrete begins to harden

and cement hydration slows. Plastic shrinkage tends to cease as concrete strength

develops.

Kejin Wang [173], stated that the most commonly observed form of plastic

shrinkage is often a combination of plastic settlement, bleeding contraction, and

autogeneous shrinkage. When the shrinkage is subjected to internal restraint, external

restraint, or both, tensile stress develops, and the concrete may crack.

In 1942 Swayse, M.A [174] defined plastic shrinkage as “a volumetric contraction

of cement paste (the magnitude of this contraction being of the order of 1 percent of the

absolute volume of the dry cement)” whereas today the ACI defines it as “shrinkage that

takes place before cement paste, mortar, grout, or concrete sets.” Plastic shrinkage

cracking is thus the cracking that develops primarily in the top surface of the freshly laid

(plastic) concrete due to this volumetric contraction of the cement paste which is

accelerated by loss of surface bleed water via evaporation.

Freshly placed concrete sometimes does not have sufficient time to develop

enough tensile strength to resist contraction stresses induced in capillary pores by rapid

evaporation; thus cracks can develop throughout the top surface of the concrete. These

cracks are normally parallel and only in the surface of the concrete; however, there can be

92

cases where they extend totally through the slab (aggravated by drying shrinkage) and

can also be random in appearance. It is interesting to note, however, that research by

Ravina and Shalon [175] in 1968 did indicate that cracking can still occur even when

evaporation is negligible (in particular when thermal strain exceeds concrete strain

capacity).

Plastic shrinkage cracks occur during the first few hours after casting concrete

while the material is still in a semi-fluid or plastic state. The study of plastic shrinkage

cracking is complicated because the material properties that determine whether such

cracks will form are time-dependent and change rapidly during the first few hours in the

life of the concrete. Such rapidly changing time-dependent properties include: the rate at

which water is lost from the concrete in response to evaporative conditions; the degree to

which the loss of water results in volume reduction; the consistency or stiffness of the

mix; and the development of the tensile stress and tensile strain capacity of the material.

While the material is undergoing shrinkage due to the loss of water, the concrete may be

sufficiently fluid to comply with the volume change and, thus, develop relatively low

tensile stresses. Alternately, the concrete may be so stiff as to resist the volume changes

and thus develop relatively high tensile stresses as compared with the tensile capacity of

the material at that time [176].

As an example of this interaction of material properties, it has been observed that

a very fluid mix (high water content), while having the potential for greater volumetric

shrinkage than a stiffer mix with lower water content, may in fact show little or no plastic

shrinkage cracking because the fluid concrete remained sufficiently mobile to allow it to

accommodate the volume change. Similarly, if the development of the tensile capacity of

the concrete is more rapid than the development of shrinkage stresses or strains, little or

no cracking may occur. Ravina and Shalon [175] noted less cracking in slabs cast in

direct sunlight than for similar slabs cast in the shade and based their explanation of this

observation on an acceleration in the rate of strength gain induced by thermal radiation.

The warming of the slab surface may also have caused expansion that offset the

shrinkage.

The shrinkage that is the root cause of these cracks is induced by the loss of

water. It is commonly held that plastic shrinkage cracking develops when the rate of

93

evaporation exceeds the rate at which bleed water is furnished to the surface and that

there is a high probability of the formation of plastic shrinkage cracks when the rate of

evaporation from the surface of the concrete is in excess of 0.975 kg of water/m2/hr (0.2

lb of water /ft2/hr).

The model proposed for the plastic shrinkage was based on the idea that the

capillary pressure in a saturated mixture exposed to drying is a function of the geometry

of the spaces between the solid particles at the surface and the difference between the

amount of evaporated water and the amount of water coming from inside the mixture. In

order to describe these quantities, as well as the geometry of the spaces between the

particles at the surface, the relationship between the capillary pressure and the amount of

evaporated water, had been introduced.

A qualitative verification of the model was made by showing that the

development of the capillary pressure in mixtures of non-reactive particles with water and

cement pastes depended on the following factors: 1. The rate of evaporation 2. The

geometry of the pores at the surface 3. The thickness of the sample 4. The modulus of

plastic shrinkage [177].

Plastic shrinkage cracking in mortar panels, simulating cracking in concrete slabs,

was investigated using the procedure developed by Kraai [177]. For the specific

conditions of the testing program, the incidence of plastic shrinkage cracking increased

with the paste volume fraction. It was also observed that the orientation and severity of

the cracks were influenced more strongly by the direction and speed of strikeoff

operations than for all other variables studied. While it was believed that some threshold

evaporation rate was necessary to initiate cracking, for the tests conducted there was no

direct correlation between the severity of the cracking and the rate of evaporation [177].

Conventional methods for preventing or reducing plastic shrinkage cracking are

directed at reducing the rate of evaporation from the surface of freshly cast concrete. This

is typically done through the use of fog sprays, windbreaks, and sunscreens, or

rescheduling the placement of concrete until environmental conditions are more

favorable. It appears likely, however, that under given evaporation conditions, additional

factors are influential in determining the extent and severity of plastic cracking. The

focus of this particular study has been to investigate the influence of mix proportions and

94

construction operations on the development of plastic shrinkage cracking in test

specimens cast under controlled environmental conditions.

Plastic shrinkage cracks may impair the serviceability, durability, or esthetics of a

concrete structure, and are therefore of economic significance in the concrete

construction industry. Such cracks may occur even when standard precautions have been

taken to prevent their formation [176].

Plastic shrinkage cracking is a constant source of concern in the concrete industry.

It causes anxiety between the concrete supplier and the client when cracks (albeit

hairline) are observed on a recently placed concrete surface. It also causes concern to the

designer as “long-term durability” comes into question. It is of particular concern in

countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the U.S.A., South Africa, and the Middle East,

where hot or windy conditions are experienced.

New formulas and nomographs are offered, such as ACI 305R-96 evaporation

monograph, thus assisting the industry to more easily calculate the evaporation of water

from a concrete surface and accordingly predict the possible onset of plastic shrinkage

cracking.

3.2 Task 2- Meet with the Technical Panel to review the research scope and work plan.

The P.I. met with the technical panel and reviewed about the scope of research

and discussed about the work plan. The following topics were discussed and satisfactory

solutions were agreed upon: trial mixes for optimum mixes, tests to be conducted,

selection of optimum mixes, tests to be done on the recommended optimum mixes. Dr

Ramakrishnan (P.I.) attended the technical panel meeting that was held in Pierre.

3.3 Task 3- Determine the extent of cracking in bridge decks by quantifying amount,

average width and type of cracking present on steel girder and pre-stressed girder bridges.

A survey of six steel girder and six pre-stressed girder bridges should be done. Three

bridges should be constructed with limestone aggregate and three with quartzite

aggregate for each bridge type surveyed.

95

BRIDGE INSPECTION

Bridges were inspected for the extent of existing cracking by visual observation.

A total of 13 bridges were inspected as a part of research work, 6 in the East River and 7

in the West River. The average width, length and area of the cracks in steel and

prestressed concrete girder bridges were recorded accurately during the inspection. The

following were the bridges selected for inspection.

East River Prestressed Concrete Girder:

1) Structure No. 08-080-112, SD 50 N over I 90; I 90 MRM 265.86; East Chamberlain

Interchange; 268.3’ x 40’; Brule County.

2) Structure No. 18-141-093, SD 37 Over City Street/ Railroad in Mitchell; MRM 74.5;

0.8 N of I 90 Loop East; 235’ x 52’; Davison County.

Steel Girder:

1) Structure No. 18-180-100, SD Over Jim River; MRM 302.93; Davison/ Hanson

County Line; 307.4’ x 40’.

2) Structure No. 09-126-149, SD 50 Over Crow Creek; MRM 219.03; 7.2 S of Jct SD 34;

268’ x 36’; Buffalo County.

3) Structure No. 50-020-141, I 90 Over SD 19 at Humbolt Interchange; MRM 379.66;

189’ x 32’; Minnehaha County.

4) Structure No. 50-020-142, I 90 Over SD 19 at Humbolt Interchange; MRM 379.66;

189’ x 32’; Minnehaha County.

West River Prestressed Concrete Girder:

1) Structure No. 10-103-367, US 212 Over the Belle Fourche River; MRM 14.10; 0.3 E

of Jct 85 at Belle Fourche; 496.1’ x 40’; Butte County.

2) Structure No. 47-215-363, SD 34 Over Belle Fourche River; MRM 56.57; 17.6 NE of

Jct SD 79 N; 371.9’ x 36’; Meade County.

3) Structure No. 24-248-119, SD 71 Over the Cheyenne River; MRM 24.5; 10 S of Hot

Springs; 418’ x 36’; Fall River County.

Steel Girder:

1) Structure No. 52-415-285, I 90 over Haines Avenue in Rapid City; MRM 58.3;

96

373’ x 40’; Pennington County.

2) Structure No. 52-415-286, I 90 over Haines Avenue in Rapid City; MRM 58.3;

373’ x 40’; Pennington County.

3) Structure No. 41-095-059, Over I 90,MRM 10.3; 334’ 9” x 40’; Lawrence County.

4) Structure No. 10-114-411, SD 34 Over Red Water River; MRM 12.81; 2.0 NW of

Lawrence Co Line; 307.8’ x 44’; Butte County.

During the inspection, the number of cracks on the top surface and bottom surface

of the bridge decks, and concrete barriers were counted and numbered. The lengths and

widths of the cracks were also noted. The width of the crack was measured accurately

using a crack comparator, which can measure crack widths between 0.08mm (0.003 in.)

and 1.25 mm (0.060 in.). All the visible cracks were noted. The length of the crack was

measured accurately using a twine thread.

The ACI Committee 224 report on cracking has recommended that the maximum

crack widths that can be tolerated are

Exposure Condition Maximum Allowable Crack Width

Dry Air 0.41 mm (0.016 in.)

Humidity, Moist Air, Soil 0.30 mm (0.012 in.)

Deicing Chemicals 0.18 mm (0.007 in.)

Sea Water 0.15 mm (0.006 in.)

Water Retaining Structures 0.10 mm (0.004 in.)

According to the ACI committee 224, maximum crack width that can be tolerated under

environmental conditions at the bridge surface (exposed to Deicing Chemicals) is 0.18

mm (0.007 in.). The current condition of bridge was determined by comparing the crack

widths with allowable widths proposed by the ACI committee to prevent intrusion of

deicing chemicals. Cracks with width less than 0.1 mm (0.004 in.) were called as hair line

cracks.

Cracks on the top surface were marked first and then the length, widths of cracks

were measured. The bottom surface of bridge deck and outside of barriers were accessed

with the help of a snooper. Cracks on bottom surface of the bridge deck and outer side of

barrier were measured for their lengths and widths. The cracks on bottom surface were

97

clearly visible due to the ingress of chloride salts and most of the cracks were full-length

cracks extending between the girders. The areas of cracks were calculated for barriers,

top surface, and bottom surface. Most of the cracks located on the barriers were hair line

cracks. The total numbers of cracks recorded in the bridges are given in Table 3.2 and the

total numbers of deleterious cracks are given in Table 3.3. The summaries of the area of

cracks for bridges are given in Tables 3.4 & 3.5. Table 3.4 gives the total area of cracks

present on the bridge; Table 3.5 gives the area of cracks that are more than 0.18 mm

(0.007 in.) in width, which are called as deleterious cracks, that cannot prevent the

intrusion of deicing chemicals. The bar charts for total number of cracks are shown in

Figures 3.14 & 3.15. The total area of cracks per 1000 Sq.ft area of bridge deck are

shown in Figures 3.16 & 3.17. The total area of the deleterious cracks per 1000 Sq.ft is

shown in Figures 3.18 & 3.19.

Table 3.2: Summary of the Total Number of Cracks in the Bridges

S.No Structure No. of Cracks No. of Cracks No. of Cracks Total No. Year of Number In the Kerbs In the Top In the Bottom of Cracks Construction

/Barriers Surface SurfaceEast River

1 09-126-149 295 239 356 890 September-982 18-141-093 328 345 552 1225 February-953 08-080-112 617 269 683 1569 December-914 50-020-141 96 200 213 509 June-865 50-020-142 192 150 204 546 June-866 18-180-100 411 81 302 794 May-86

West River

1 52-415-285 215 146 652 1013 July-992 52-415-286 749 221 633 1603 July-993 47-215-363 127 24 249 400 January-974 24-248-119 166 14 182 362 December-965 41-095-059 331 25 439 795 March-956 10-103-367 261 87 300 648 December-907 10-114-411 416 68 290 774 October-89

98

Table 3.3: Summary of the Total Number of Deleterious Cracks (Width >0.18 mm)

S.No Structure No. of Cracks No. of Cracks No. of Cracks Total No. Number In the In the In the of Cracks

Kerbs/Barriers Top Surface Bottom SurfaceEast River

1 09-126-149 0 3 39 422 18-141-093 0 73 53 1263 08-080-112 0 39 122 1614 50-020-141 0 17 48 655 50-020-142 0 4 26 306 18-180-100 0 50 52 102

West River

1 52-415-285 0 141 108 2492 52-415-286 0 220 51 2713 47-215-363 0 0 96 964 24-248-119 0 4 47 515 41-095-059 1 11 6 186 10-103-367 0 84 39 1237 10-114-411 0 62 26 88

Table 3.4: Summary of Total Area of Cracks Per 1000 Sq, ft

S.No Structure Area of Cracks Area of Cracks Total Area of Cracks Total Area Number In the Top Surface In the Bottom Surface of Bridge Deck

( ft2 ) ( ft2 ) ( ft2 ) ( ft2 )East River

1 09-126-149 0.050 0.100 0.150 96482 18-141-093 0.070 0.090 0.160 122203 08-080-112 0.080 0.180 0.260 107324 50-020-141 0.030 0.100 0.130 60485 50-020-142 0.040 0.090 0.130 60486 18-180-100 0.030 0.060 0.090 12296

West River

1 52-415-285 0.160 0.110 0.270 149202 52-415-286 0.360 0.100 0.460 149203 47-215-363 0.002 0.050 0.052 133884 24-248-119 0.001 0.040 0.041 150485 41-095-059 0.009 0.060 0.069 133906 10-103-367 0.080 0.040 0.120 198447 10-114-411 0.140 0.040 0.180 13543

99

Table 3.5: Summary of Total Area of Cracks (Width > 0.18 mm) Per 1000 Sq. ft

S.No Structure Area of Cracks Area of Cracks Total Area of Cracks Total Area Number In the Top Surface In the Bottom Surface of Bridge Deck

( ft2 ) ( ft2 ) ( ft2 ) ( ft2 )East River

1 09-126-149 0.010 0.030 0.040 96482 18-141-093 0.050 0.020 0.070 122203 08-080-112 0.020 0.050 0.070 107324 50-020-141 0.015 0.050 0.065 60485 50-020-142 0.003 0.030 0.033 60486 18-180-100 0.030 0.030 0.060 12296

West River

1 52-415-285 0.160 0.030 0.190 149202 52-415-286 0.360 0.020 0.380 149203 47-215-363 0.000 0.030 0.030 133884 24-248-119 0.000 0.030 0.030 150485 41-095-059 0.006 0.002 0.008 133906 10-103-367 0.080 0.008 0.088 198447 10-114-411 0.140 0.008 0.148 13543

Year of Construction

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Buffalo Davison Brule Minnehaha Minnehaha Davison

County

Num

ber

of C

rack

s

Dec 91

Feb 95

May 86Sep 98

Jun 86Jun 86

Figure 3.14: Total Number of Cracks in Bridges (East river)

100


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Pennington Pennington Meade Fall River Lawrence Butte Butte

County

Num

ber

of C

rack

s

Dec 90

Jan 97 Dec 96

Jul 99

Jul 99

Mar 95 Oct 89

Figure 3.15: Total Number of Cracks in Bridges (West River)

It is assumed that all the east river bridge decks were built with quartzite

aggregate concrete and all west river bridge decks were built with limestone aggregate

concrete. The following conclusions could be drawn from the inspection: In the east river

region, the bridges that were constructed earlier had less number of cracks when

compared to new bridges. STR No. 18-180-100 (Davison County) and 50-020-141 and

142 (Minnehaha County) had lesser number of cracks than other bridges. They were

constructed in 1986 and are 16 years old. Among new bridges, STR No.09-126-149

(Buffalo County) had less number of cracks, but is 4 yrs old. The total area of cracks per

1000 sq.ft of bridge deck area were also less for older bridges, proving that older bridges

are in better condition than the new ones. In general the total area of deleterious cracks

per 1000 sq.ft of bridge deck area was also less for the older bridges, STR No. 50-020-

141 and 142 (Minnehaha County) and STR No. 18-18-100 (Davison County). STR No.

09-126-149 (Buffalo County) also had lesser areas of deleterious cracks, but are

comparatively younger in comparison to Minnehaha county and Davison county bridges.

In the west river region, the newly constructed bridges had the highest number of

cracks, STR No. 52-415-285 and 286 (Pennington County) which were constructed in

1999, had 1013 and 1603 cracks in the barriers, bottom surface and top surface. Some of

101

the newly constructed bridges, STR No. 24-248-119 (Fall River County), STR No. 47-

215-363 (Meade County) and STR No. 41-095-059 (Lawrence County) had lesser

number of cracks.


0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500


County

Tot

al A

rea

of C

rack

s Per

100

0 Sq

.ft

Dec 91

Feb 95

May 86

Sep 98Jun 86 Jun 86

Figure 3.16: Total Area of Cracks per 1000 Sq.ft (East River)

In west river also, in general the older bridges are in better condition when compared to

the new bridges. STR No. 47-215-363 (Meade County) and STR No. 24-248-119 (Fall

River County) which are 5 years old also had lesser number of cracks. The number of

cracks might increase with age and exposure to traffic. Of all the bridges, STR No. 24-

248-119 (Fall River County) had lesser area of cracks per 1000 sq.ft of bridge deck area,

and STR No. 10-103-367 (Butte County) and 10-114-411 (Butte County) were in better

condition as they had 111.5 cm2 2 (0.12 ft ) and 167.2 cm2 2 (0.18 ft ) area of cracks

respectively after 12 years of service. STR No. 41-095-059 (Lawrence County) (7 years)

had the least total area of deleterious cracks per 1000 sq.ft of bridge deck area. This

particular bridge was the only bridge built with polyolefin fiber reinforced concrete in the

bridge deck. As expected, the use of polyolefin fibers in the bridge deck had contributed

in minimizing the number as well as the area of deleterious cracks.

102


0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500


County

Tot

al A

rea

of C

rack

s per

100

0 Sq

.ft

Jan 97 Dec 96

Jul 99

Jul 99

Mar 95

Oct 89

Dec 90

Figure 3.17: Total Area of Cracks per 1000 Sq.ft (West River)


0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500


County

Tot

al A

rea

of D

elet

erio

us C

rack

s per

10

00 S

q.ft

Dec 91Feb 95 May 86Sep 98

Jun 86

Jun 86

Figure 3.18: Total Area of Deleterious Cracks per 1000 Sq.ft (East river)

103


0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500


County

Tot

al A

rea

of D

elet

erio

us C

rack

s per

10

00 S

q.ft

Dec 90Jan 97

Dec 96

Jul 99

Jul 99

Oct 89

Mar 95

Figure 3.19: Total Area of Deleterious Cracks per 1000 Sq.ft (West river)

The bar chart showing the comparison of steel and prestressed concrete girders are

shown in Figures 3.20 and 3.21. In the east river region, the steel girder bridges

performed better than the prestressed concrete girder bridges. The total areas of

deleterious cracks were less for the steel girder bridges, when compared to prestressed

concrete girder bridges. Steel girder bridges that are recently constructed (1998) had

almost the same area of deleterious cracks, when compared to the older bridges (1986). In

the west river region, the prestressed concrete girder bridges performed better than the

steel girder bridges. The total areas of deleterious cracks were less for the prestressed

concrete bridges, when compared to steel girder bridges. The prestressed concrete girder

bridges that were recently constructed (1997) had almost the same area of deleterious

cracks, when compared to the older bridges (1990).

In general, it can be stated that older bridges had comparatively lesser cracking in

comparison to the newly constructed bridges. The possible reasons may be the use of

high cement content and one size aggregate, which leads to higher shrinkage cracking in

bridge decks.

104


0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

Buffalo (Steel)

Davison (Prestressed

concrete)

Brule (Prestressed

concrete)

Minnehaha (Steel)

Minnehaha (Steel)

Davison (Steel)

County (Girder Type)

Tot

al A

rea

of D

elet

erio

us C

rack

s per

10

00 sq

.ft

Sep 98Jun 86 Jun 86 May 86Feb 95 Dec 91

Figure 3.20: Comparison of Steel and Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridges

for Total Area of Deleterious Cracks per 1000 sq.ft (East River)

The mix designs available for the bridges surveyed were obtained from the

SDDOT and are given in Table 3.6. For STR No. 10-103-367 (Butte County), STR No.

10-114-411 (Butte County) and 47-215-363 (Meade County), the mix designs data were

not available. They were assumed to be supplied by the nearest contractor in the region.

From the mix designs, the percentage of coarse aggregate and fine aggregate used was

found. Assuming that 25 mm (1 inch) coarse aggregate was used and blended with fine

aggregate, the combined aggregate gradation was determined for all the bridges. The

combined gradations were verified with the 0.45 power chart, Shilstone’s optimum mix,

USAF constructability chart and 8-18 method. It was found for all the mixes that the

combined gradation used was almost gap-graded.

The cement content used for the bridges was too high ranging between 391.6

kg/m3 (660 pcy) to 412.3 kg/m3 (695 pcy). It was found from the research conducted at

SDSM&T that by using optimum graded aggregates the cement content could be reduced

to 355.9 kg/m3 (600 pcy) without compromising the strength and durability aspects of

concrete. Higher cement content leads to more mortar paste and as a result higher

105

shrinkage cracks. The use of higher cement content and gap-grading of aggregates might

have led to increased shrinkage cracks. These cracks exposed to various temperatures and

traffic over a period of time have increased in length and width. The cracks can be

reduced by using the optimum mixes with well-graded aggregate proposed in this report.


0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

Pennington (Steel)

Pennington (Steel)

Meade (Prestressed

concrete)

Fall River (Prestressed

concrete)

Lawrence (Steel)

Butte (Prestressed

concrete)

Butte (Steel)

County (Girder Type)

Tot

al A

rea

of D

elet

erio

us C

rack

s per

10

00 S

q.ft

Dec 90

Jan 97 Dec 96

Jul 99

Jul 99

Oct 89

Mar 95

Figure 3.21: Comparison of Steel and Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridges for Total Area of Deleterious Cracks per 1000 sq.ft (West River) Details of Cracks and their location

A separate comprehensive report totaling more than 500 pages both in the

electronic format (C.D) and hard copy was submitted in September 2002 to the SDDOT

and the regional engineers in the East River and West River who had arranged for the

snoopers and traffic control during our inspection of the bridges. This report contains

scale drawings in which the cracks are mapped in the actual locations with each crack

given a number. Tables were included giving the crack number, the length, width at

different locations, the average width and area of each crack. The exact location of the

cracks in the barrier, the top surface, bottom surface of the bridge decks are shown in the

drawings. The procedure used for the inspection and a brief analysis are also included in

the report.

106

Table 3.6: Available Concrete Details for the Inspected Bridge Deck

S. No Structure County Water Cement Fly Ash Coarse Fine Air Slump 28 Day CompNumber Aggregate Aggregate Content Strength

pcy pcy pcy pcy pcy % in. psi

East River

1 09-126-149 Buffalo 261 660 1746 1151 6.5 3.0 63502 18-141-093 Davison 264 660 1769 1154 6.4 2.8 56373 08-080-112 Brule 261 561 124 1720 1135 6.2 3.4 59854 50-020-141 Minnehaha N.A. N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A5 50-020-142 Minnehaha N.A. N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A6 18-180-100 Davison 260 682 1629 1275 6.1 2.9 5703

West River

1 52-415-285 Pennington 272 670 1748 1179 N.A N.A N.A2 52-415-286 Pennington 272 670 1748 1179 N.A N.A N.A3 47-215-363 Meade 275 670 1748 1179 N.A N.A N.A4 24-248-119 Fall River 284 679 1724 1156 N.A N.A N.A5 41-095-059 Lawrence 310 570 125 1340 1340 5.2 3.1 58256 10-103-367 Butte 282 695 1690 1151 N.A N.A N.A7 10-114-411 Butte 282 695 1690 1151 N.A N.A N.A

* N.A. - Not Available

107

3.4 Task 4 - Determine gradations for starting points of mix designs using limestone,

quartzite, and granite coarse aggregates. The objective is to maximize the coarse

aggregate amount and size – up to 1.5”.

3.4.1 Blending of Quartzite Aggregates

Sieve Analysis was done for the various sizes of the aggregates to determine their

individual gradations. The fineness moduli of the aggregates were evaluated as per

ASTM C 136 and are given in Table 3.7. The Individual gradation plots of all the

aggregates are shown in Figures AQ1 to AQ11 (Appendix A). The aim was to obtain a

gradation that would satisfy as nearly as possible with 0.45 power chart. The best

possible blend with the available aggregate sizes that matched the target gradation was

obtained by trial and error.


37.5 mm (1.5 inch), 19 mm (¾ inch) and natural sand in the proportion of 27.5%: 37.5%:

35% respectively. The coarseness and workability factors were evaluated and are given in

Table 3.8. This combined gradation satisfied the 0.45 power chart [shown in Figure

AQ25 (Appendix B)], which gave the maximum denser packing of aggregates. With the

selected gradation, it was possible to reduce the cement content, which in turn helped to

reduce the shrinkage cracks and permeability. The above respective percentages of two

sizes of aggregates and sand were weighed, blended together and then the sieve analysis

was done for the blended aggregate. It was observed that the experimental values and

theoretical values that were obtained from the 0.45 power chart were almost the same.

This gradation was taken as the optimum gradation for the quartzite aggregate.

After the optimum aggregate gradation was obtained using the 0.45 power chart,

it was also compared with the optimum mix gradation proposed by Shilstone. It was

found that the optimum aggregate gradation obtained using the 0.45 power chart was

almost the same as the optimum mix gradation proposed by Shilstone (shown in Figure

AQ28). The same gradation was then compared with the USAF constructability chart. It

was also found that the optimum aggregate gradation was in the well-graded zone in the

constructability chart (shown in Figure AQ31). The optimum gradation was then

compared with the 8-18 Method. The blended aggregate percentage retained between

108

sieves was almost well within the upper and lower limits of 8-18 Method (shown in

Figure AQ34).

Table 3.7: Summary of Finesse Moduli of the Quartzite Aggregates

S.no AverageTrial I Trial II Trial III

1 2.75 2.68 2.64 2.69

2 2.85 2.84 2.85

3 2.42 2.19 2.90 2.50

4 2.17 2.31 2.24

5 7.95 7.95

6 7.10 7.10

7 6.70 6.70

8 6.47 6.47

9 5.32 5.32

10 5.30 5.30

11 5.29 5.29

7/16" Spencer Quarry

3/8" Spencer Quarry

Fineness Modulus

Medium Sand: Birdsall, Wasta

Fine Sand: Opperman, Winner Area

3/4" Washed Spencer Quarry

Description(Source)

Coarse Sand: Fischer, Spearfish

9/16" Spencer Quarry

# 4 Spencer Quarry

1 1/2" Spencer Quarry

1" Spencer Quarry

3/4" Unwashed Spencer Quarry

Table 3.8: Combined Aggregate Gradation for Quartzite Aggregate

Sieve Size (in)

Sieve Size (mm)

% Passing % Batch % Passing % Batch % Passing%

BatchUpper Limit

Lower Limit

1.5 37.5 97.67 26.86 100.00 37.50 100.00 35.00 99 100 0 10.0 0.01 25 39.00 10.73 100.00 37.50 100.00 35.00 83 83 16 18.0 0.03/4 19 4.67 1.28 100.00 37.50 100.00 35.00 74 74 9 18.0 8.01/2 12.5 0.40 0.11 82.41 30.90 100.00 35.00 66 61 8 18.0 8.03/8 9.5 0.40 0.11 45.26 16.97 100.00 35.00 52 54 14 18.0 8.0

No. 4 4.75 0.36 0.10 4.44 1.66 99.28 34.75 37 39 16 18.0 8.0No. 8 2.36 0.35 0.10 0.96 0.36 88.89 31.11 32 29 5 18.0 8.0No. 16 1.18 0.33 0.09 0.71 0.26 69.39 24.29 25 21 7 18.0 8.0No. 30 0.6 0.31 0.09 0.63 0.23 43.30 15.15 15 16 9 18.0 8.0No. 50 0.3 0.28 0.08 0.55 0.21 19.24 6.73 7 11 8 10.5 4.0No. 100 0.15 0.23 0.06 0.43 0.16 4.08 1.43 2 8 5 3.0 0.0

48is 5.64

68

is 5.4870

32

Coarseness Factor =

Workability Factor =

Aggregate # 1 (1.5 in.)

Percentage: 27.5%

Aggregate # 2 (3/4 W)

Percentage: 37.5% 8 - 18 Method

% Retained Above 9.5 mm Sieve =

% Retained Above # 8 Sieve =

Aggregate # 3 (Birdsall Sand)

Percentage 35%Blend % Passing

Target %

Passing

% Retained between sieves

The Fineness Modulus of the blended aggregate

The Fineness Modulus of the Target gradation

109

3.4.2 Blending of Limestone Aggregates

Sieve Analysis was done for the various sizes of the aggregates sent by the Hills

Materials Company, to determine their individual gradations. The fineness moduli of the

aggregates were evaluated as per ASTM C 136 and are given in Table 3.9. The Individual

gradation plots of all the aggregates are shown in Figures AL12 to AL20 (Appendix A).

The aim was to obtain an optimum blend whose gradation would satisfy as nearly as

possible with 0.45 power chart. For practical considerations, in order to make it easier for

aggregate suppliers, only two standard sizes (1.5” and ¾” maximum sizes) of coarse

aggregates were selected for blending. Therefore it is realized that an exact fitting with

the 0.45 power chart would not be possible to achieve.

Based on the individual gradation results of these sample aggregates, two different

sizes of the aggregate were blended with Birdsall Cresteon sand, in varying proportions

of the aggregate and sand to obtain an optimum blend. The best possible blend (optimum

blend) with the available aggregate sizes that matched the target gradation was obtained

by trial and error. Sieve Analysis was done again on the optimum blend to get combined

gradation. After various analysis and numerous comparisons two different blends - 30%

of 1.5 inch aggregate, 35% of ¾ inch aggregate, 35% of Birdsall sand and 23% of 1.5

inch aggregate, 42% of ¾ inch aggregate, 35% of Birdsall sand were found to be fitting

and matching the standard required requirements and charts i.e. when compared with the

0.45 Power Chart, Shilstone Method and U.S. Air Force Method. The combined

aggregate gradation values for both the above blends are given in Table 3.10 and

3.11.The graphical comparison plots of these two blends with the 0.45 Power Chart,

Table 3.9 Summary of Fineness Moduli Results.

S.No Description Fineness Modulus Average

Source Trial I Trial II Trial III1 Fine Sand, Birdsall Creston 2.76 2.76 - 2.762 1 1/2 inch Aggregate(Initially Supplied),Hills Materials 7.92 7.93 - 7.923 3/4 inch Aggregate(Initially Supplied),Hills Materials 6.55 6.78 6.65 6.664 1 1/2 inch Aggregate(New Improved),Hills Materials 7.64 7.63 - 7.635 1 1/2 inch Aggregate(Finally Supplied),Hills Materials 7.72 7.73 - 7.726 1.0 inch Aggregate(Finally Supplied),Hills Materials 7.00 7.00 - 7.007 3/4 inch Aggregate(Finally Supplied),Hills Materials 6.66 6.71 6.28 6.55

110

Table 3.10 Combined Aggregate Gradation of Blend I (30%, 35%, and 35%) Sieve Size (in)

Sieve Size

(mm)

% Passing%

Batch%

Passing%

Batch%

Passing%

Batch1.5 37.5 100.00 30.00 100.00 35.00 100.00 35.00 100 100 0 10.0 0.01 25 61.65 18.50 100.00 35.00 100.00 35.00 88 83 12 18.0 0.0

3/4 19 19.25 5.78 98.02 34.31 100.00 35.00 75 74 13 18.0 8.01/2 12.5 3.35 1.01 61.54 21.54 100.00 35.00 58 61 18 18.0 8.03/8 9.5 2.07 0.62 34.02 11.91 100.00 35.00 48 54 10 18.0 8.0

No. 4 4.75 1.26 0.38 3.46 1.21 99.28 34.75 36 39 11 18.0 8.0No. 8 2.36 1.11 0.33 1.98 0.69 88.89 31.11 32 29 4 18.0 8.0No. 16 1.18 1.05 0.32 1.94 0.68 69.39 24.29 25 21 7 18.0 8.0No. 30 0.6 0.99 0.30 1.92 0.67 43.30 15.15 16 16 9 18.0 8.0No. 50 0.3 0.94 0.28 1.90 0.67 19.24 6.73 8 11 8 10.5 4.0No. 100 0.15 0.86 0.26 1.86 0.65 4.08 1.43 2 8 5 3.0 0.0

52

68

77

32Workability Factor =

Upper Limit

Lower Limit


Percentage: 30.0%

Aggregate # 2 (3/4 in.)

Percentage:


Percentage Blend %

Passing

Target %

Passing

% Retained between

sieves



Coarseness Factor =

Table 3.11 Combined Aggregate Gradation of Blend II (23%, 42%, and 35%)

Sieve Size (in)

Sieve Size

(mm)

2 0 0 01.5 37.5 100.00 23.00 100.00 42.00 100.00 35.00 100 100 0 10.0 0.01 25 61.65 14.18 100.00 42.00 100.00 35.00 91 83 9 18.0 0.03/4 19 19.25 4.43 98.02 41.17 100.00 35.00 81 74 11 18.0 8.01/2 12.5 3.35 0.77 61.54 25.85 100.00 35.00 62 61 19 18.0 8.03/8 9.5 2.07 0.48 34.02 14.29 100.00 35.00 50 54 12 18.0 8.0

No. 4 4.75 1.26 0.29 3.46 1.45 99.28 34.75 36 39 13 18.0 8.0No. 8 2.36 1.11 0.26 1.98 0.83 88.89 31.11 32 29 4 18.0 8.0No. 16 1.18 1.05 0.24 1.94 0.81 69.39 24.29 25 21 7 18.0 8.0No. 30 0.6 0.99 0.23 1.92 0.81 43.30 15.15 16 16 9 18.0 8.0No. 50 0.3 0.94 0.22 1.90 0.80 19.24 6.73 8 11 8 10.5 4.0No. 100 0.15 0.86 0.20 1.86 0.78 4.08 1.43 2 8 5 3.0 0.0

50

68

74

32



Coarseness Factor =

Workability Factor =

Upper Limit

Lower Limit


Percentage: 23.0%

Aggregate # 2 (3/4 in.)

Percentage: 42.0%

gg g(Birdsall Sand)

Percentage 35.0%

Blend %

Passing

Target %

Passing

Retained between sieves

111

Shilstone Method and the 8-18 method are shown in Figures AL26,AL29,AL32,AL35

and AL37-AL40 (Appendix A). The blended aggregate percentage retained between

sieves was almost well within the upper and lower limits of 8-18 Method. The gradation

for the two respective blends when compared to the USAF Constructability Chart was

found that these optimum gradations were in the well graded and coarse gap graded zone.

3.4.3 Blending of Granite Aggregates

Sieve Analysis was done for the aggregates supplied to determine their individual

gradations. The fineness moduli of the aggregates were evaluated as per ASTM C 136.

The Individual gradation plots of all the aggregates are shown in Figures AG21 to AG24

(Appendix A). The aim was to obtain a gradation that would satisfy as nearly as possible

with 0.45 power chart. The best possible blend with the available aggregate sizes that

matched the target gradation was obtained by trial and error.


37.5 mm (1.5 inch), 19 mm (¾ inch) and natural sand in the proportion of 35.0%: 30.0%:

35% respectively. The coarseness and workability factors were evaluated and are given in

Table 3.12. This combined gradation satisfied the 0.45 power chart [shown in Figure

AG27 (Appendix A)], which gave the maximum denser packing of aggregates. With the

selected gradation, it was possible to reduce the cement content, which in turn helped to

reduce the shrinkage cracks and permeability. The above respective percentages of two

sizes of aggregates and sand were weighed, blended together and then the sieve analysis

was done for the blended aggregate. It was observed that the experimental values and

theoretical values that were obtained from the 0.45 power chart were almost the same.

This gradation was taken as the optimum gradation for the granite aggregate.

After the optimum aggregate gradation was obtained using the 0.45 power chart,

it was also compared with the optimum mix gradation proposed by Shilstone. It was

found that the optimum aggregate gradation obtained using the 0.45 power chart was

almost the same as the optimum mix gradation proposed by Shilstone (shown in Figure

AG30). The same gradation was then compared with the USAF constructability chart. It

112

was also found that the optimum aggregate gradation was in the well-graded zone in the

constructability chart (shown in Figure AG33). The optimum gradation was then

compared with the 8-18 Method. The blended aggregate percentage retained between

sieves was almost well within the upper and lower limits of 8-18 Method (shown in

Figure AG36).

The supplied coarse aggregates were crushed aggregates and there was a greater

variation in the shape and texture of the aggregates. It was more difficult to get the exact

compatibility with the 0.45 power chart, Shilstone method, USAF method and 8-18

method. After number of trial combinations the best blend had coarseness factor of 51

and a workability factor of 32

Table 3.12: Combined Aggregate Gradation for Granite Aggregate

Sieve Size (in)

Sieve Size (mm)

% Passing % Batch % Passing%

Batch % Passing%

Batch1.5 37.5 100.00 35.00 100.00 30.00 100.00 35.00 100 100 0 10.0 0.01 25 99.01 34.65 100.00 30.00 100.00 35.00 100 83 0 18.0 0.03/4 19 85.27 29.85 100.00 30.00 100.00 35.00 95 74 5 18.0 8.01/2 12.5 42.07 14.72 97.52 29.26 100.00 35.00 79 61 16 18.0 8.03/8 9.5 20.49 7.17 76.54 22.96 100.00 35.00 65 54 14 18.0 8.0

No. 4 4.75 1.19 0.42 10.90 3.27 99.28 34.75 38 39 27 18.0 8.0No. 8 2.36 0.66 0.23 2.40 0.72 88.89 31.11 32 29 6 18.0 8.0No. 16 1.18 0.61 0.21 1.78 0.53 69.39 24.29 25 21 7 18.0 8.0No. 30 0.6 0.57 0.20 1.56 0.47 43.30 15.15 16 16 9 18.0 8.0No. 50 0.3 0.53 0.19 1.40 0.42 19.24 6.73 7 11 8 10.5 4.0No. 100 0.15 0.47 0.17 1.20 0.36 4.08 1.43 2 8 5 3.0 0.0

34.87

67.94

5132Workability Factor =

Upper Limit

Lower Limit

Aggregate # 1 (1.5 in.) Percentage: 35.0%


Percentage 35.0%Blend % Passing

Target % Passing

% Retained between sieves

Aggregate # 2 (3/4 in.) Percentage:

30.0%



Coarseness Factor =

113

3.5 Task 5 - Develop a well-graded aggregate gradation to minimize cement past content.

Quartzite Aggregate

Using the optimized gradations, trial mixes were conducted to minimize cement

paste content without significantly altering the strength, workability and finishability

requirements specified by SDDOT.

Details of Trial Mixes:

A Total of 15 trial mixes were made, 5 control mixes using the standard aggregate

gradation with 25 mm (1 in) maximum size aggregate and medium sand, 5 optimized

aggregate proportions blending 37.5 mm (1.5 in) and 19 mm (¾ in) aggregates and 5

optimized aggregate proportions with fly ash. Two cement contents (655 and 600 pcy), 4

water to cement ratios (0.40, 0.42, 0.43 and 0.45) and four different quantities of air

entraining agent were tried. Two different fly ash contents (25% and 20% by weight of

cement) were also tried. The mix designations used are given in Table 3.13 and the

mixture proportions are given in Table 3.14.

The fresh concrete properties (air content and slump) are given Table 3.15. The

compressive strengths at 1, 3,7,14 and 28 days are also compared in Table 3.15. Strength

developments are shown in Figures 3.22 to 3.26.

All the mixes had satisfactory workability and finishability. However mixes with

fly ash had lower air contents, lower slump, better finishability and significantly higher

compressive strengths. Even though the slumps were lower, the workability was the same

as control concrete. In the mixes with fly ash the air content and the slump can be

increased either by increasing the w/(c+f) ratio slightly, which would reduce the

compressive strength values equal to the control concrete strengths at initial ages up to 28

days and then will be higher, or by adding a small quantity of medium water reducer or

superplasticizer. The addition of appropriate quantity of water reducer will increase the

slump and consequently the air content without reducing the strength. Because these are

trial mixes, the air contents varied and most of them were lower than the specified 5%

minimum. In the final selected mixes the air contents were controlled so that they will be

within the specified limit.

114

The optimized mix with reduced cement paste (about 10 percent reduction in

cement content) OQB42 R, had an air content of 5.8 percent and 76 mm (3 in) slump,

which are the required values. The compressive strengths were almost the same as that of

the control concrete. Therefore this mix was selected for further testing. The mixture

proportion for the selected mix is shown in Table 3.16. It is expected that, it would

enhance the desirable hardened concrete properties such as low drying shrinkage, lower

creep and higher durability, particularly when 20 percent of cement by weight is replaced

with 25% fly ash. The 20 percent replacement is selected based on recommendations

made in the recently completed project SD 00- 06, Determination of Optimized Fly Ash

Content in Bridge Deck and Bridge Deck Overlay Concrete.

Table 3.13: Mixture Designations

Mix ID Description

CQB45 Control Quartzite Bridge Deck ConcreteOQB45 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with No Fly Ash

OQFB45 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly AshWater-cement ratio 0.45

CQB45A Control Quartzite Bridge Deck CocreteOQB45A Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with No Fly Ash

OQFB45A Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly AshWater-cement ratio 0.45

CQB40 Control Quartzite Bridge Deck ConcreteOQB40 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash

OQFB40 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Water-cement ratio 0.40

CQB43 Control Quartzite Bridge Deck ConcreteOQB43 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash

OQFB43 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Water-cement ratio 0.43

CQB42 Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete OQB42 R Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash

(Reduced Cement) OQFB42 R Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash

(Reduced Cement)Water-cement ratio 0.42

115

Table 3.14: Mixture Proportions for Trial Mixes of Bridge Deck Concretes with Quartzite Aggregate

Fly Ash Cement Fine Fly Ash Air Water w/c w/(c+f)1.5" Max 1" Max 3/4" Max Aggregate Entraining

Size Size Size Agent % pcy pcy pcy pcy pcy pcy *A pcy % %

CQB45 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 0 1.00 295 0.45 0.45OQB45 0 655 777 0 1060 989 0 1.00 295 0.45 0.45

OQFB45 * 25 491 777 0 1060 989 197 1.00 221 0.45 0.32

CQB45 A 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 0 1.25 295 0.45 0.45OQB45 A 0 655 777 0 1060 989 0 1.25 295 0.45 0.45

OQFB45 A * 25 491 777 0 1060 989 197 3.00 221 0.45 0.32

CQB40 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 0 1.50 262 0.40 0.40OQB40 0 655 777 0 1060 989 0 1.50 262 0.40 0.40

OQFB40 * 25 491 777 0 1060 989 197 2.00 197 0.40 0.29

CQB43 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 0 1.50 282 0.43 0.43OQB43 0 655 777 0 1060 989 0 1.50 282 0.43 0.43

OQFB43 ** 20 524 777 0 1060 989 164 2.00 164 0.43 0.33

CQB42 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 0 1.50 275 0.42 0.42OQB42 R 0 600 777 0 1060 989 0 1.50 252 0.42 0.42

OQFB42 R ** 20 480 777 0 1060 989 150 2.50 202 0.42 0.32

* ** *A pcy w/c

w/(c+f) 1 oz

Percent by weight of cement replaced by Fly Ash, Volume correction factor of 1.20 Percent by weight of cement replaced by Fly Ash, Volume correction factor of 1.25 Ounces per 100 lb of cementPounds per cubic yard water-cement ratio water-cementitious ratio 29.57 ml

Mix ID Coarse AggregateMixture Proportions

116

Table 3.15: Comparison of Compressive Strength of Trial Mixes of Bridge Deck Concretes with Quartzite Aggregate

Mix Date Mix ID Air Content Slump% in 1 Day 3 Day 7 Day 14 Day 28 Day

9/10/2002w/c = 0.45Air = 1 oz CQB45 4.0 4 1/8 2237 3185 3934 4908 5023Air = 1 oz OQB45 4.0 2 13/16 2290 3208 4038 4968 5039Air = 1 oz OQFB45 2.6 1/2 3224 4713 5362 5869 6008

9/17/2002w/c = 0.45Air = 1.25 oz CQB45 A 5.8 3 5/8 1901 3036 3898 4271Air = 1.25 oz OQB45 A 6.0 3 5/16 1671 2917 3614 3915Air = 1.5 oz OQFB45 A 3.0 5/8 2661 4314 5255 5355

9/12/2002w/c = 0.40Air = 1.5 oz CQB40 3.8 2 1/16 2604 4034 4299 5005 5605Air = 1.5 oz OQB40 4.2 2 3/8 2378 3663 4503 5102 5649Air = 2.5 oz OQFB40 2.6 1/4 3127 4460 5382 5930 6154

9/21/2002w/c = 0.43Air = 1.5 oz CQB43 6.4 4 1/16 1994 3091 3794 4052Air = 1.5 oz OQB43 6.0 6 1996 3052 3564 4057Air = 2.0 oz OQFB43 3.6 13/16 2697 4023 4506 5308

9/27/2002w/c = 0.42Air = 1.5 oz CQB42 5.2 2 11/16 2049 3319 3976Air = 1.5 oz OQB42 R 5.8 3 1750 2927 3604Air = 2.5 oz OQFB42 R 3.2 5/16 2598 4161 5050

Air Air Entraining Agent per 100 lb of CementCQB Control QuartziteOQB Optimum Quartzite with No Fly AshOQFB Optimum Quartzite with Fly Ash

Average Compressive Strength (psi)

117

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1 Day 3 Day 7 Day 14 Day 28 Day

Age (in Days)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (p

si)

CQBOQBOQFB

Figure 3.22: Comparison of Compressive Strength of Bridge Deck Concretes with

Quartzite Aggregate (Trial Mix w/c – 0.45)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000


Age (in Days)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (p

si)

CQB45 AOQBROQFBR


Quartzite Aggregate (Trial Mix w/c – 0.45 repeat)

118

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000


Age (in Days)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (p

si)

CQB43OQB43OQFB43



0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000


Age (in Days)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (p

si)

CQB42OQB42OQFB42



119

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000


Age ( in Days)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (p

si)

CQBOQBOQFB


Quartzite Aggregate (Trial Mix w/c – 0.4) Table 3.16: Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concretes with Quartzite Aggregate Ingredient CQB OQB OQFB

Cement (pcy) 655 590 471.6Fly Ash (pcy) 0 0 147.4Coarse Aggregate (pcy) 1.5" 0 776.9 776.9

1.0" 1725 0 03/4" 0 1059.4 1059.4

Fine Aggregate (pcy) 1100 988.8 988.8Water (pcy) 275.1 247.6 221.7W/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.47W/CM Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.36

SI Unit converstion Factorspcy-pounds per cubic yard1pcy- 0.593 kg/m3

1 oz.- 29.57 ml1 lb.- 0.4536 kg Note:


2. Whenever required, an appropriate quantity of water reducing agent (either mid range or

high range) should be used to achieve the specified slump.

120

Limestone Aggregate

A similar procedure as was used for quartzite aggregate was used to minimize

cement paste content without significantly altering the strength, workability and

finishability requirements specified by SDDOT. By analyzing the trial mix results, the

following optimized aggregate gradation, mixture proportions and fly ash requirements

given in Table 3.17 were selected to obtain the optimum possible cement reduction.

Table 3.17: Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

Note: propriate quantity of air entraining agent should be used to obtain the required


ranite Aggregate

sing the optimized aggregate gradations, and a similar procedure was used (as

for qua

Ingredient CLB OLB OLFB

Cement (pcy) 655.0 589.5 471.6Fly ash (pcy) 0.0 0.0 147.4Coarse Aggregate (pcy) 1.5" 0.0 847.5 847.5

1.0" 1725.0 0.0 0.03/4" 0.0 988.8 988.8

Fine Aggregate (pcy) 1100.0 988.8 988.8Water (pcy) 275.1 247.6 221.7W/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.47W/CM Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.36

SI Unit Conversion factorspcy - pounds per cubic yard1 pcy - 0.593 kg/m3

1 oz. - 29.57 ml1 lb - 0.4536 kg

1. Apair content.


G

U

rtzite and limestone aggregate), to obtain the optimum possible cement reduction

and to minimize cement paste content without significantly altering the strength,

workability and finishability requirements specified by SDDOT. By analyzing the trial

121

mix results, the optimized aggregate gradation, mixture proportions and fly ash

requirements given in Table 3.18 are recommended.

For the three aggregate types with the same 10% reduction in cement content was

achieve

able 3.18: Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate

propriate quantity of air entraining agent should be used to obtain the required

ed, an appropriate quantity of water reducing agent (either mid

.6 Task 6

d, without significantly changing the strength, workability and finishability

requirements specified by SDDOT.

T

Note: 1. Ap

air content. 2. Whenever requir


3 - Obtain panel approval of the proposed gradation before conducting mix

A technical panel meeting was held in Pierre and the P.I. (Ramakrishnan)

particip

Fly Ash (pcy)Coarse Aggregate (pcy) 1.5"

1" 3/4"

Fine Aggregate (pcy)Water (pcy)W/C RatioW/CM Ratio

SI Unit Conversion Factorspcy - Pounds per cubic yard 1 oz. - 29.57 ml1 pcy - 0.593 kg/m3 1 lb - 0.4536 kg

988.8221.80.470.36

147.5988.8

0.0847.5

0.42

988.8247.6

0.42

1100.0275.10.42 0.42

0.0988.8

0.0847.5

0.00.0

1725.00.0

655.0 590.0 472.0Cement (pcy)

Ingredient CGB OGB OGFB

designs.

ated in it. At this meeting the developed well-graded aggregate gradations have

been submitted and the details of the tasks that related to the construction portion of the

project were discussed. Approval was obtained for the developed well-graded aggregate

gradation and the selected mix proportions.

122

3.7 Task 7 - Develop mix designs using limestone, quartzite, and granite coarse

aggregates. Each coarse aggregate will be tested with coarse, medium and fine sand.

Additional mix designs will include Class F fly ash as indicated in the following table.

South Dakota standard mix designs for each coarse aggregate should be used as a control.

In Task 4 the analysis found out that medium sand had the most suitable gradation

for obtaining the optimized blended aggregate which satisfied the 0.45 Power Chart

Method, Shilstone Method, U.S.A.F Constructability Chart and 8-18 Method. Mix

designs were developed for bridge deck concrete with the three different types (Quartzite,

Limestone and Granite) aggregates and the mixes were evaluated for fresh and hardened

concrete properties.

The fresh concrete properties evaluated were Slump (ASTM C143), Air Content

(ASTM C231), Concrete Temperature (ASTM C1064) and the Hardened concrete

properties evaluated were Compressive strength(ASTM C39) and Static Modulus(ASTM

C469). The results are given in Chapter 4. The finally selected optimum mixture

proportions are given in Task 5.

3.7.1 Quartzite Aggregate

Mixture designation for trial mixes for Bridge Deck concrete with Quartzite

aggregates are shown in Table AQ1 and the actual mix designations are shown in Table

AQ4. Design mix proportions for trial mixes of Bridge Deck concrete with Quartzite

aggregates are shown in Table AQ7 and for the actual mixes are shown in Table AQ10.

3.7.2 Limestone Aggregate

Mixture designation for trial mixes for Bridge Deck concrete with Limestone

aggregates are shown in Table AL2 and the actual mix designations are shown in Table

AL5. Design mix proportions for trial mixes of Bridge Deck concrete with Limestone

aggregates are shown in Table AL8 and for the actual mixes are shown in Table AL11.

123

3.7.3 Granite Aggregate

Mixture designation for trial mixes for Bridge Deck concrete with Granite

aggregates are shown in Table AG3 and the actual mixes designations are shown in Table

AG6. Design mix proportions for trial mixes of Bridge Deck concrete with Granite

aggregates are shown in Table AG9 and for the actual mixes are shown in Table AG12.

Notes 1. Appropriate amount of air-entraining agent was used to obtain the specified air

content of 6.25±1.25%. Since the air content depends on various factors such as

the type of cement, the ambient temperature, the concrete temperature, humidity,

the slump required and total quantity of concrete mixed in the drum, a specific

accurate amount cannot be stated.

2. For the fly ash concrete, normally the addition of water reducer would be

required. However the amount to be added depends on the slump required, the

concrete temperature, humidity, air content, type of cement, and the total quantity

of the concrete mixed in the drum.

3. Therefore it should be decided by trial mixes in the field about how much air

entraining agent and how much water reducer should be used to obtain the

required air content and slump.

Task 8 3.8 - Conduct performance tests on hardened concrete for laboratory mix

combinations and on the collected field samples for the structural concrete. Performance

tests should include, but not be limited to, permeability, freeze thaw durability, drying

shrinkage, compressive strength, and unit weight.

Performance tests were conducted on both fresh and hardened concretes.

Appropriate ASTM, ACI and AASHTO standard test methods were used to determine:

Slump (ASTM C143) Rapid chloride permeability

(ASTM C1202 and AASHTO T277)

Vebe Time Compressive strength (ASTM C39)

124

Air Content (ASTM C231) Modulus of elasticity (ASTM C469)

Unit weight (ASTM C138) &Yield Flexural strength (Modulus of

Rupture – ASTM C78)

Concrete temperature (ASTM C1064) Alkali Aggregate Reactivity

Finishibility (By Observation) (ASTM C1260)

Drying Shrinkage (ASTM C157) Sulfate Resistance (ASTM C1012)

Freeze Thaw Resistance – ASTM C666 Creep and Shrinkage (ASTM C512)

Plastic Shrinkage Cracking Potential Initial & Final Setting Times (ASTM C403)

For all the three types of concretes made respectively with three types of coarse

aggregates, performance tests were done on both the fresh and hardened concretes and

are discussed in Chapter 4.0.

The field work (construction of the bridge decks using the recommended

optimized aggregate gradation mixes) has been postponed from summer 2002 to summer

2004, therefore the performance tests on field samples will be conducted once the field

work commences. The test results of the field samples and a comparison of the results

with the lab samples will be made and will be reported in a separate report.

3.9 Task 9 - Provide mix design results for inclusion by Construction Change Order in

bridges being constructed during the 2002 construction season by May 1, 2002.

The recommended mix proportions with and without fly ash which incorporated

the optimized aggregate (limestone) gradation was submitted to the technical panel for

inclusion in the construction change order in bridges that is being planned to be

constructed during the 2004 construction session. The mix proportions for bridge deck

concrete with limestone aggregate are given below. Since the panel had identified bridges

to be constructed in the Rapid City region mix proportions of concrete made with

limestone aggregate (which is locally available in Rapid City) were recommended.

The weight proportions are proportionally adjusted based on the specific gravities

of the available materials to obtain the required one cubic yard volume.

125

Table 3.19: Recommended Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

Ingredient

Volume Proportions

(ft3)

Volume Proportions

(ft3)

Volume Proportions

(ft3)Cement 667.00 pcy 3.37 619.00 pcy 3.13 496.00 pcy 2.51Fly Ash 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.00 155.00 pcy 0.99Coarse Aggregate 1.5" 0.00 pcy 0.00 893.00 pcy 5.34 898.00 pcy 5.37

1.0" 1759.00 pcy 10.52 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.003/4" 0.00 pcy 0.00 1043.00 pcy 6.24 1045.00 pcy 6.25

Fine Aggregate 1122.00 pcy 6.86 1043.00 pcy 6.38 1045.00 pcy 6.39Water 280.00 pcy 4.49 260.00 pcy 4.17 233.00 pcy 3.73Air 6.50 % 1.76 6.50 % 1.76 6.50 % 1.76Total 27.00 27.00 27.00W/C RatioW/CM Ratio

CLB - Control Limestone Bridge Deck ConcreteOLB - Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly Ash)

OLFB - Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly Ash)


1 oz.- 29.57 ml1 lb.- 0.4536 kg

CLB OLB OLFB

Weight Proportions

Weight Proportions

Weight Proportions

Cement - 3.17; Fly Ash - 2.50; Coarse Aggregate - 2.68; Fine Aggregate - 2.62

0.470.36

The following values of specific gravities were used for the calculation of volume proportions:

0.420.42

0.420.42

Notes




Task 103.10 - Conduct performance tests on hardened concrete for field mix

combinations and on the collected field samples for the structural concrete. Performance

tests should include, but not be limited to, permeability, freeze thaw, durability, drying

shrinkage, compressive strength, and unit weight.

The field work (construction of the bridge decks using the recommended

optimized aggregate gradation mixes) has been postponed from summer 2002 to summer

126

2004, therefore the performance tests on field samples will be conducted once the field

work commences. Specimens will be prepared from the field concrete for testing for

hardened concrete properties. The fresh concrete quality control tests (listed in Task 8)

and described in Chapter 2.0 will be conducted in the field.

The strength and durability performance tests on hardened concretes (listed in

Task 8) as described in Chapter 2.0 will be conducted and included in a separate report.

In addition adequate number of samples would be prepared in the field and tested at

various ages to determine the compressive strength development with age up to 90 days.

3.11 Task 11 – Conduct petrographic analysis of selected cores to evaluate the mix

design characteristics and the relationship between the aggregate-paste ratio as it relates

to the strength and durability of the concrete.

The petrographic analysis of the selected cores will be done at the Engineering

and Mining Experiment Station (EMES) of the SDSM&T, with the guidance and

supervision provided by Dr. Edward F. Duke, Manager of EMES. Some graduate

students will help Dr. Duke in the Petrographic analysis. It is proposed to conduct

petrographic analysis for about 20 samples. However the number of samples will be

decided in consultation with the Technical Panel. The petrographic analysis will evaluate

the mix design characteristics and the relationship between the aggregate paste ratio as it

relates to the strength and durability of the concrete. The results will be given in a

separate report soon after construction of the bridges.

3.12 Task 12 – Survey bridge(s) constructed using the new gradation during the 2002

construction season within 6 months after construction to determine amount, average

crack width, and type of cracks on continuous concrete slab, steel girder, and pre-stressed

girder bridges.

A detailed condition survey of the bridges constructed using the new optimum

graded aggregates will be done immediately after the forms are removed. They will be

surveyed again after 6 months. The survey will consist of determining accurately, the

127

number and location of cracks, their lengths, widths and areas. Digital photographs will

be also taken. The type and nature of the cracks will be discussed. The performance of

these newly constructed bridges will be compared with the performance of bridges

surveyed in Task 3.

3.13 Task 13 - Recommend Class A45 Concrete mix designs, including aggregate

gradation, for optimized structural concrete based on results from this study.

This report includes recommendations for class A 45 concrete mix designs and

testing guidelines for the optimized structural concrete that could be used for bridge deck

and other structures. The recommendations include aggregate gradations for the three

types of aggregate sources in South Dakota. These recommendations are based on the

results from the laboratory study. The recommended mixture proportions for the three

types of aggregates are given below.

Table 3.20: Recommended Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate

IngredientVolume

Proportions (ft3)

Volume Proportions

(ft3)

Volume Proportions




CQB - Control Quartzite Bridge Deck ConcreteOQB - Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly Ash)

OQFB - Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly Ash)

SI Unit converstion Factorspcy-pounds per cubic yard

1pcy- 0.593 kg/m3

1 oz.- 29.57 ml1 lb.- 0.4536 kg

0.36


Weight Proportions

Weight Proportions

Weight Proportions

0.420.42

0.420.42

0.47

CQB OQB OQFB

128

Notes 1. Appropriate quantity of air entraining agent should be used to obtain the required

air content. 2. Whenever required, an appropriate quantity of water reducing agent (either mid


Table 3.21: Recommended Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

Ingredient

Volume Proportions

(ft3)

Volume Proportions

(ft3)

Volume Proportions




CLB - Control Limestone Bridge Deck ConcreteOLB - Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly Ash)

OLFB - Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly Ash)


1 oz.- 29.57 ml1 lb.- 0.4536 kg

CLB OLB OLFB

Weight Proportions

Weight Proportions

Weight Proportions

Cement - 3.17; Fly Ash - 2.50; Coarse Aggregate - 2.68; Fine Aggregate - 2.62

0.470.36

The following values of specific gravities were used for the calculation of volume proportions:

0.420.42

0.420.42

Notes




129

Table 3.22: Recommended Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate

Ingredient

Volume Proportions

(ft3)

Volume Proportions

(ft3)

Volume Proportions




CGB - Control Granite Bridge Deck ConcreteOGB - Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly Ash)

OGFB - Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly Ash)


1 oz.- 29.57 ml1 lb.- 0.4536 kg

CGB OGB OGFB

Weight Proportions

Weight Proportions

Weight Proportions

0.42 0.42 0.470.36


0.42 0.42

Notes




3.14 Task 14 – Submit a final report summarizing relevant literature, research

methodology, test results, findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

130

This report includes the results of the literature survey, research methodology

used, detailed test results, observations, performance evaluations, conclusions and

recommendations based on the laboratory study. An executive summary is also included

in this report.

3.15 Task 15 – Make an executive presentation to the SDDOT Research Review Board

summarizing the findings and conclusions.

The P.I. will make an executive presentation summarizing the findings and

conclusions to SDDOT Research review Board.

131

CHAPTER 4.0 TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Fresh Concrete Properties

4.1.1 Fresh Concrete Properties with Quartzite Aggregates

Results of fresh concrete properties such as slump, air content, and unit weight for

the trial mixes are given in Table AQ13 (Appendix A). The fresh concrete properties for

the final mixes are given in Table AQ16 (Appendix A). The corresponding bar charts for

the trial mixes are shown in Figures AQ41, AQ44 and AQ47 (Appendix A). The bar

charts for the final mixes are shown in Figures 4.1 to 4.3. Figures AQ50, AQ53 and

AQ56 (Appendix A) show the bar charts for control and optimum concretes with

quartzite aggregate for the first mix.

The slump of the trial mixes ranged from 52.4 mm (2.1 in.) to 104.8 mm (4.1 in.)

for control concrete, 60.3 mm (2.4 in.) to 152.4 mm (6 in.) for optimum concrete without

fly ash, and 6.35 mm (0.25 in.) to 20.62 mm (0.812 in.) for optimum concrete with fly

ash. The trial mixes were done by varying the water-cement ratio from 0.40 to 0.45. The

final mixes were then done by selecting a water-cement ratio of 0.42.

The air content of the trial mixes ranged from 3.8% to 6.4% for control concrete,

4% to 6% for the optimum mix without fly ash, and from 2.6% to 3.6% for the optimum

mix with fly ash.

The unit weight of the trial mixes ranged from 2291 kg/m3 (143 lb/ft3) to 2387

kg/m3 3 (149 lb/ft ) for control concrete, 2307 kg/m3 3 (144 lb/ft ) to 2371 kg/m3 3 (148 lb/ft )

for optimum concrete without fly ash, and 2403 kg/m3 (150 lb/ft3) to 2435 kg/m3 (152

lb/ft3) for the optimum concrete with fly ash.

4.1.2 Fresh Concrete Properties with Limestone Aggregates:


the trial mixes are given in Table AL14 (Appendix A). The fresh concrete properties for

the final mixes are given in Table AL17 (Appendix A). The corresponding bar charts for

the trial mixes are shown in Figures AL42, AL45 and AL48 (Appendix A). The bar

charts for the final mixes are shown in Figures 4.4 to 4.7. Figures AL51, AL54 and AL57

132

(Appendix A) show the bar charts for control and optimum concretes with limestone

aggregate for the final mixes.

The slump of the trial mixes ranged from 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) to 101.6 mm (4.0 in.),

38.1 mm (1.5 in.) to 76.2 mm (3.0 in.) for control concrete, 55.9 mm (2.2 in.) to 68.6 mm

(2.7 in.) for optimum concrete without fly ash, and 50.8 mm (2.0 in.) to 81.3 mm (3.2 in.)

for optimum concrete with fly ash. The trial mixes were done by varying the water-

cement ratio from 0.42 to 0.55. The final mixes were then done by selecting a water-

cement ratio of 0.42.

The air content of the trial mixes ranged from 3.4% to 6.8%, 5.4% to 5.8% for

control concrete, 5.2% to 6.0% for the optimum mix without fly ash, and from 5.6% to

6.8% for the optimum mix with fly ash.

The unit weight of the trial mixes ranged from 2323 kg/m3 (145 lb/ft3) to 2403

kg/m3 3 (150 lb/ft ), 2355 kg/m3 3 (147 lb/ft ) to 2371 kg/m3 (148) lb/ft3 for control concrete,

2371 kg/m3 (148 lb/ft3) to 2387 kg/m3 3 (149 lb/ft ) for optimum concrete without fly ash,

and a constant weight of 2371 kg/m3 (148 lb/ft3) for the optimum concrete with fly ash.

4.1.3 Fresh Concrete Properties with Granite Aggregates:


the trial mixes are given in Table AG15 (Appendix A). The fresh concrete properties for

the final mixes are given in Table AG18 (Appendix A). The corresponding bar charts for

the trial mixes are shown in Figures AQ43, AQ46 and AQ49 (Appendix A). The bar

charts for the final mixes are shown in Figures 4.7 to 4.9. Figures AL52, AL55 and AL58

(Appendix A) show the bar charts for control and optimum concretes with Granite

aggregate for the final mixes.

The slump of the trial mixes was 52.4 mm (2.1 in.) for control concrete, 38.1 mm

(1.5 in.) for optimum concrete without fly ash, and 20.30 mm (0.8 in.) to 48.26 mm (1.9

in.) for optimum concrete with fly ash. The trial mixes were done by varying the water-

cement ratio from 0.42 to 0.50. The final mixes were then done by selecting a water-

cement ratio of 0.42 for Control Mix and Optimum Mix without Fly Ash and 0.47 for

Optimum Mix with Fly Ash.

133

The air content of the trial mixes was 5.6% for control concrete, 5.2% to 6.6% for

the optimum mix without fly ash, and 5.0% to 6.8% for the optimum mix with fly ash.

The unit weight of the trial mixes was 2291 kg/m3 (146 lb/ft3) for control

concrete, 2323 kg/m3 (145 lb/ft3) to 2371 kg/m3 (148 lb/ft3) for optimum concrete without

fly ash, and 2307 kg/m3 (144 lb/ft3) to 2355 kg/m3 3 (147 lb/ft ) for the optimum concrete

with fly ash.

Summary of the trial mix investigation

The primary objective of this project was to reduce shrinkage cracks in concrete by

reducing the excess cement content in the concrete mix by optimizing the aggregate

gradation. Different percentage reductions of cement content (8.4%, 10% and 15%) were

tried comprehensively, and tested for strength and workability characteristics. It was

found that concrete mixes made with 10% reduction in cement content (compared to the

corresponding control concrete) gave the optimum results. Even though there was a 10%

reduction in cement content, a corresponding strength reduction was not observed

because of the use of optimized aggregate gradation. This phenomenon was not observed

for concrete mixes made with 15% reduction in cement content. This indicated that

concretes made with 10% cement reduction were the optimum. The influence of different

percentages of cement content (8.4% & 10% for quartzite aggregate concretes, 10 & 15%

for limestone aggregate concretes and 10% for granite aggregate) on the durability

characteristics of concretes were also determined and are also reported in the Appendix.

The comparison of the durability test results between the two sets of mixes (8.4 % and

10%) with different percentages of cement reduction for concretes made with quartzite

aggregate were made. It was found that the strength and durability test results of both the

sets of mixes showed similar trends. Because of this, only the results of concretes (made

with quartzite aggregates) with 10% reduction in cement content are discussed. Similarity

of durability test results was not observed for concretes made with limestone aggregates

with different percentages reduction in cement content (10% & 15%). It was found from

trial mixes that by using well-graded aggregates the cement content could be reduced to a

maximum of 10% without compromising the strength and workability of concrete.

134

4.2 Quartzite Aggregate Mixes:

4.2.1 Mix used for Strength Development and Alkali Aggregate Reactivity:

4.2.1.1 Fresh Concrete Properties:

Mix 1 was used for the study of strength development of concrete, resistance to

sulfate attack, rapid chloride permeability test, drying shrinkage, and flexural strength.

Three mixes were made, control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and

optimum concrete with fly ash. The slumps were 82.5 mm (3.25 in.) for control concrete,

89 mm (3.5 in.) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 38.1 mm (1.5 in.) for optimum

concrete with fly ash. There was a replacement of 20% by weight of cement with 25% by

weight of fly ash for the optimum concrete with fly ash mix. A medium range water

reducer was used for the optimum concrete with fly ash mixes.

0

1

2

3

4

Control Optimum with out Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash

Slum

p (in

)

Figure 4.1: Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Quartzite Aggregate

135

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Air

Con

tent

(%)

Figure 4.2: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 1)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140


Uni

t Wei

ght (

pcf)

Figure 4.3: Comparison of Unit Weights for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Quartzite Aggregate

136

The air content for control concrete was 6.6%, for the optimum mix without fly

ash was 6.6%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 5.4%. The control and optimum

with out fly ash concretes had slightly higher air content compared to the optimum with

fly ash concrete. All the air contents were within the specified limits of 6.25 ± 1.25

percent.

The unit weights were 2307 kg/m3 (144 lb/ft3) for control concrete, 2291 kg/m3

(143 lb/ft3) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 2387 kg/m3 (149 lb/ft3) for

optimum concrete with fly ash.

The ambient temperature was 26.60 C (80 F) for all the mixes. The humidity was

45% for all the three mixes. The concrete temperatures for the final mixes are given in

Table A6.

4.2.1.2 Hardened Concrete Properties

4.2.1.2.1 Compressive Strength

Testing for the compressive strength of trial mixes was done at 1, 3, 7, 14 and 28

days. The 28-day strength results are given in Table BQ1. The bar chart is shown in

Figure BQ1. The final mix was selected based on the required workability and strength.

Tests were carried out at 1, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56 and 90 days with three cylinders per

mix to study the strength development of the control concrete, optimum concrete without

fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The strength development of the optimum

concretes was compared to the control concrete. The results are given in Tables BQ1,

BQ4 and BQ7. Table BQ1 gives the results of compressive strength for control concrete,

Table BQ4 for optimum concrete without fly ash and Table BQ7 gives the results of


A bar chart showing the rate of strength development at all ages is shown in Figure 4.4.

137

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1 day 3 day 7 day 14 day 28 day 56 day 90 day

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (p

si)

ControlOptimum without Fly AshOptimum with Fly Ash

Figure 4.4: Comparison of Compressive Strengths for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate

The results for compressive strength of the final mixes for control concrete, optimum

concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are discussed below.

The 1 day to 90 day compressive strength of the concretes increased from 11.56

MPa (1678 psi) to 38.00 MPa (5512 psi) for the control quartzite bridge deck concrete,

17.64 MPa (2559 psi) to 40.23 MPa (5836 psi) for the optimum quartzite bridge deck

concrete without fly ash and from 24.10 MPa (3496 psi) to 47.15 MPa (6839 psi) for

optimum quartzite bridge deck concrete with fly ash.

The optimum concrete with fly ash had the highest 1-day compressive strength of

24.16 Mpa (3505 psi). The 1-day compressive strengths for optimum concrete without fly

ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 41% and 62% more than that of the control

concrete.

The 3-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete

without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 23.4 MPa (3407 psi), 27.26 MPa

138

(3954 psi) and 30.88 MPa (4479 psi) respectively. The 3-day compressive strengths for

optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 13.8% and

31.4% more than that of the control concrete.


without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 25.06 MPa (3831 psi), 30.83

MPa (4472 psi) and 37.98 MPa (5508 psi) respectively. The 7-day compressive strengths

for optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 16.8% and

43.70% more than that of the control concrete.



MPa (4755 psi) and 44.17 MPa (6407 psi) respectively. The 14-day compressive

strengths for optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were

4.55% and 40.8% more than that of the control concrete.





2.5% and 24% more than that of the control concrete.

The 56-day compressive strength for the control concrete, optimum concrete




7% and 25% more than that of the control concrete.






139

4.2.1.2.2 Static Modulus

Testing was done at 28, 56 and 90 days for static modulus. Three specimens were

tested for each mix. The results are given in Tables BQ10, BQ13 and BQ16. Table BQ10

gives the results of static modulus for control concrete, Table A9 for optimum concrete

without fly ash and Table BQ13 gives the results of optimum concrete with fly ash. The

corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure 4.5.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

28 56 90

Age (Days)

Stat

ic M

odul

us (

x106 ps

i)

CQB OQB OQFB

Figure 4.5: Comparison of Static modulus for Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite

Aggregate

The static modulus values ranged from 3.0 x 104 Mpa (4.65 x 106 psi) to 3.60 x

104 Mpa (5.30 x 106 psi) for control concrete, 3.4 x 104 Mpa (4.95 x 106 psi) to 3.88 x 104

Mpa (5.55 x 106 psi) for optimum concrete without fly ash and from 4.00 x 104 Mpa

(5.89 x 106 4 6 psi) to 4.44 x 10 Mpa (6.48 x 10 psi) for optimum concrete with fly ash. The

highest static modulus value was obtained for the optimum concrete with fly ash at 90

days, and was 4.44 x 104 6 Mpa (6.48 x 10 psi).

140

4.2.1.2.3 Dry Unit Weight

The dry unit weight results for 1, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56 and 90 days are given in Tables

BQ1, BQ4 and BQ7. The average dry unit weight varied from 2322 Kg/m3 (145 lb/ft3) to

2386 Kg/m3 (152 lb/ft3). The control quartzite bridge deck concrete had the lowest dry

unit weight of 2434 Kg/m3 3 (145 lb/ft ) compared to the optimum quartzite bridge deck

concrete without & with fly ash. A bar chart showing dry unit weights at the end of 90

days is shown in Figure 4.6.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Control Optimum Optimum with Fly Ash

Mix

Dry

Uni

t Wei

ght (

lb/ft

3 )

Figure 4.6: Comparison of Dry Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate

4.2.1.2.4 Modulus of Rupture (Flexural Strength)

Tests were conducted at 14 days and 28 days to determine the flexural strength of

concrete. Three specimens per mix of size 356 mm x 100 mm x 100 mm (14 in x 4 in x 4

in) were tested for control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum

concrete with fly ash. The results are given in Table BQ10, BQ13 and BQ16. The


141

The flexural strength of concrete varied from 3.40 Mpa (494 psi) to 5.03 Mpa

(730 psi). The optimum concrete with fly ash had the highest flexural strength compared

to the control concrete and the optimum concrete without fly ash.

The 14 day flexural strengths of control concrete, optimum concrete without fly

ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 3.51 Mpa (510 psi), 3.66 Mpa (531 psi) and

4.19 Mpa (609 psi) respectively. The 14-day flexural strengths for optimum concrete

without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 4% and 19.4% more than that of

the control concrete.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

14 Day 28 DayAge (Days)

Flex

ural

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

ControlOptimum without Fly AshOptimum with Fly Ash

Figure 4.7: Comparison of Flexural strength for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Quartzite Aggregate The 28 day flexural strengths of control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and

optimum concrete with fly ash were 4.20 Mpa (610 psi), 4.30 Mpa (625 psi) and 4.93

Mpa (716 psi) respectively. The 28-day flexural strength for optimum concrete without

fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 2.4% and 17.3% respectively more than

that for the control concrete. 4.2.1.2.5 Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

The mean expansion of mortar bars exposed to sodium sulfate solution having a

pH of 7.2 was studied. Six specimens of size 286 mm x 25 mm x 25 mm (11.25 in x 1 in

142

x 1 in) were exposed to the sulfate solution and the average expansions of the six

specimens were noted. The results of the mean expansion for bridge deck concrete with

quartzite aggregate are given in Tables DQ1, DQ4 and DQ7.

The mean expansions of control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly

ash concretes at the end of 15 weeks were 0.02792%, 0.02200% and 0.01950%

respectively. It can be observed that the average expansion of specimens increased with

respect to time. The optimum concrete with fly ash had lesser mean expansion compared

to control concrete and optimum concrete without fly ash. It can be concluded that the

addition of fly ash had increased the resistance of concrete to sulfate solution.

The addition of fly ash resists the ettringite formation, which is formed in

hardened concrete that is exposed to sulfate rich environments. The formation of

ettringite causes cracking which will deteriorate the concrete. The addition of fly ash

also reduced the formation of Gypsum (which causes deterioration in concrete) and

increased the resistance to sulfate attack.

There were reductions of 18% and 29% in the mean expansions of optimum

concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash, when compared to that of the

control concrete. The results are shown in Figure 4.8.

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Immersion Age (Weeks)

Mea

n E

xpan

sion

(%)

CQB OQB 3OQFB

Figure 4.8: Mean expansion of mortar bars (Quartzite Aggregate) subjected to

sulfate solution.

143

4.2.1.3 Chloride Permeability Test

Tests were conducted at 56 days and 90 days for the control concrete, optimum

concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The results are given in

Table EQ1.

At 56 days, the control concrete had a chloride permeability value of 5400

coulombs, which is classified as “High”, the optimum concrete without fly ash had a

permeability value of 3019 coulombs, which is classified as “Moderate”, and the

optimum with fly ash had a permeability value of 2306 coulombs, which is classified as

“Moderate”.



permeability value of 2077 coulombs, which is classified as “Moderate”, and the


“Low”. The bar chart showing the results of chloride permeability at 56 and 90 days is

shown in Figure 4.9.

The addition of fly ash had increased the resistance of concrete towards the

penetration of chloride ions. Of all the three mixes, control concrete, optimum concrete

without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash, the optimum concrete with fly ash

had the highest resistance to the permeability of chloride ions.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

CQB OQB OQFBMix

Perm

eabi

lity

(Col

oum

bs)

At 56 DaysAt 90 Days

Figure 4.9: Comparison of Chloride ion permeability for Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate

144

4.2.1.4 Drying Shrinkage Deformations

The shrinkage deformations of the concrete specimens for control concrete and

the optimum concrete mixes were evaluated. Three specimens of size 286 mm x 75 mm x

75 mm (11.25 in x 3 in x 3 in) per mix were used to evaluate the shrinkage deformations.

The measured shrinkage deformations and the duration over which they have been taken

are given in Table GQ1. The time vs. drying shrinkage deformations for the three mixes

are shown in Figure 4.10.

At the end of 90 days, the control concrete had the highest unit shrinkage strain of

447 x 10-6 -6, optimum concrete without fly ash had 378 x 10 , and optimum concrete with

fly ash had 328 x 10-6. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure 4.11. The

optimum concrete with fly ash had the least shrinkage strain of all the three mixes.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 30 60

Time (in Days)

Shri

nkag

e D

efor

mat

ion,

10-6

in/in

90

CQB OQB 3OQFB

Figure 4.10: Comparison of Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Bridge Deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate

There were reductions of 15% and 26% in the shrinkage deformations for

optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash respectively when

compared to that of the control concrete, at the end of 90 days. The use of well-graded

aggregate led to the reduction in cement content and hence there was a reduction in the

drying shrinkage of concrete

145

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


Mix

Shri

nkag

e D

efor

mat

ions

, 10-6

in/in

Figure 4.11: Comparison of Drying Shrinkage Deformations at the end of 90 days

for Bridge Deck concrete with Quartzite Aggregate

4.2.2 Mix used for Initial and Final Setting Times, Deicer Chemicals, Resistance

to Freeze-Thaw cycles and Alkali aggregate reactivity.

4.2.2.1 Fresh Concrete Properties

Mix 2 was used for the study of setting times of concrete. Three mixes were

made, control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly

ash. The slumps were 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) for control concrete, 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) for

optimum concrete without fly ash and 76.2 mm (3 in.) for optimum concrete with fly ash.

For the optimum concrete with fly ash, there was a replacement of 20% by weight of

cement with 25% percent by weight of fly ash. A medium range water reducer was used

for the optimum concrete with fly ash mixes. The corresponding bar chart is shown in

Figure AQ59 (Appendix A).


ash was 6.2%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 5.4%. The optimum with out fly

ash had higher air content compared to the other two mixes. The corresponding bar chart

is shown in Figure AQ61 (Appendix A).

146



optimum concrete with fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure AQ64

(Appendix A).

The ambient temperature was 21.10 C (70 F) and humidity was 45% during the

mixing of concrete.

4.2.2.2 Initial and Final Setting Times

The main objective was to determine the initial and final setting times of concrete,

by sieving the mortar from the concrete. The penetration resistances recorded

corresponding to the elapsed times are given in Tables CQ1, CQ4 and CQ7 for bridge

deck concrete with quartzite aggregate. The time vs. penetration graphs are shown in

figures CQ1, CQ4 and CQ7 (Appendix C). The initial setting time for the quartzite bridge

deck mixes ranged from 212 minutes to 295 minutes. The optimum concrete with fly ash

had higher initial setting time compared to control and optimum with out fly ash

concretes. The final setting times for the quartzite bride deck mixes ranged from 255

minutes to 325 minutes. The control concrete with quartzite aggregate had lesser final

setting time compared to the both optimum concretes. The summary of the setting times

for bridge deck concrete is given in Table 4.1.

The optimum quartzite bridge deck concrete with fly ash had higher initial and

final setting times compared to both control concrete and optimum concrete without fly

ash. Among the three mixes for bridge deck concrete, the control quartzite bridge deck

concrete had lesser initial and final setting times when compared to the optimum concrete

with fly ash. The bar charts for initial and final setting times for bridge deck concrete are

shown in Figures 4.12 and 4.13.

Table 4.1: Summary of Initial and Final Setting Time of Bridge Deck Concrete Mix ID Initial Setting Time Final Setting Time

(mins) (mins)2-CQB 212 2552-OQB 250 292

2-OQFB 295 325

Mix Description

Control Quartzite Bridge Deck ConcreteOptimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly ashOptimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly ash

147

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Control Optimum Optimum with Fly AshMix

Tim

e(m

in)

Figure 4.12: Comparison of Initial Setting time for Bridge deck concrete with

Quartzite Aggregate

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350


Tim

e(m

in)

Figure 4.13: Comparison of Final Setting time for Bridge deck concrete with

Quartzite Aggregate

The addition of fly ash increased the initial and final setting times for bridge deck

concrete with quartzite aggregates. The ambient temperature and humidity were noted for

all the mixes.

148

4.2.2.3 Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals

The main aim was to determine the resistance to scaling of concrete surface

exposed to freezing and thawing cycles in the presence of deicing chemicals. Two

specimens of size 355.6 x 152.4 x 152.4 mm (14 x 6 x 6 in.) were subjected to freezing

and thawing cycles in the presence of Calcium Chloride solution. They were subjected to

50 cycles of freezing and thawing. Each cycle had 18 hours of freezing and 6 hours of

thawing. At the end of 50 cycles the scaling resistance was determined visually by

comparing with the standard scaling chart given by ASTM. The scaling classification for

the control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly

ash are given in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Comparison of Scaling Resistance for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Quartzite Aggregate

Mix ID ASTM ClassificationSpecimen 1 Specimen 2

CQB 1 1 Very Light Scaling

OQB 1 1 Very Light Scaling

OQFB 0 0 No Scaling

ASTM Rating

The standard ASTM classification chart is shown in Figure 4.13. The optimum

concrete with fly ash had performed better than the control concrete and optimum

concrete without fly ash. There was no scaling observed for the optimum concrete with

fly ash. The control concrete and optimum concrete without fly ash had very light scaling

at the end of 50 cycles of freezing and thawing in the presence of Calcium Chloride

solution.

The scaling of the control concrete specimen is shown in Figure 4.14, optimum

concrete without fly ash specimen is shown in Figure 4.15, and the optimum concrete

with fly ash specimen is shown in Figure 4.16. All the three mixes had good scaling

resistance after 50 cycles of freezing and thawing in the presence of deicing chemicals

(calcium chloride solution)

149

Figure 4.14: ASTM classification chart for Deicer Scaling

Figure 4.15: Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete – After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals

150

Figure 4.16: Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash – After 50

cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals

Figure 4.17: Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash – After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals

151

4.2.2.4 Alkali Aggregate Reactivity

The mean percentage expansion of the mortar bars exposed to sodium hydroxide

solution was studied. Four specimens of size 286 mm x 25 mm x 25 mm (11.25 in x 1 in

x 1 in) were exposed to the alkali solution. The mean expansion was found at 3, 7, 11 and

14 days for all the concretes. The results are given in Tables FQ1, FQ4 and FQ7

(Appendix F). Table FQ1 gives the mean percent expansion for the control concrete,

Table FQ4 gives mean percent expansion for the optimum concrete without fly ash and

Table FQ7 gives mean percent expansion for the optimum concrete with fly ash. The

maximum expansion at the end of 14 days was observed for control concrete, and the

minimum was observed for the optimum concrete with fly ash.

The control concrete had a percentage expansion of 0.20833%, the optimum

concrete without fly ash had an expansion of 0.18400%, and optimum concrete with fly

ash had a mean expansion of 0.03775%, at the end of 14 days. The optimum concrete

with fly ash had lesser mean expansion when compared to optimum concrete without fly

ash and control concrete. The optimum concrete mixes performed better than the control

concrete at all ages. The optimum concrete with fly ash had better resistance to the alkali

solution, when compared to the control concrete and optimum concrete without fly ash.

The mean expansions of the control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and

optimum concrete with fly ash, at all ages are given in Table 4.3.

It can be observed from the results that there were reductions of 10% and 85% in

the mean percentage expansions of optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum

concrete with fly ash, when compared to the control concrete at the end of 14 days. The

addition of fly ash had reduced the mean percentage expansion, and increased the

resistance of concrete to alkali attack. The results are shown in Figure 4.18.

Table 4.3: Summary of mean percent expansion of Alkali Aggregate specimens for

Bridge deck concrete MIX ID Mix Description Percent Expansion after

3 Days 7 Days 11 Days 14 DaysCQB Control Quartzite Concrete 0.02788 0.11463 0.16478 0.20833OQB Optimum Quartzite concrete with out fly ash 0.02288 0.10588 0.14138 0.18400

OQFB Optimum Quartzite Concrete with fly ash 0.00625 0.01238 0.02813 0.03775

152

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Age(Days)

Mea

n E

xpan

sion

(%)

Control Quartzite Bridge Deck

Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck

Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck with FlyAsh

Inno

cous

Del

eter

ious

Inno

cous

&

Del

eter

ious

Figure 4.18: Comparison of Mean Expansion of Mortar bars subjected to Alkali

Solution for Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite aggregate.

4.2.2.5 Freeze Thaw Resistance

The pulse time and pulse velocity measured for control concrete, optimum

concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are given in Tables IQ1 and

IQ2 (Appendix I). The corresponding graph is shown in Figure 4.19. The pulse velocity

after 300 cycles of freezing and thawing for the control concrete was 4489 m/s (14729)

ft/sec), 4521 m/s (14833 ft/sec) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 4575 m/s

(15012 ft/sec) for optimum concrete with fly ash. At 0 cycles (14 days) the pulse velocity

was taken as 100% and the percentage change in pulse velocity was calculated for the

300 cycles (64 days) of freezing and thawing. The percentage change in pulse velocity

for all the three mixes are given in Table IQ7 (Appendix I). The control concrete exposed

to freeze thaw cycles exhibited a reduction of pulse velocity from 100% at 0 cycles to

95.59% at 300 cycles. The optimum concrete without fly ash exposed to freeze thaw

cycles exhibited a reduction of pulse velocity from 100% at 0 cycles to 95.33% at 300

cycles. The optimum concrete with fly ash exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited

153

reduction of pulse velocity from 100% at 0 cycles to 95.03% at 300 cycles. The pulse

velocities for the specimens subjected to standard curing were also recorded. The pulse

velocity after 64 days of standard curing for the control concrete was 4734 m/s (15534


(16150 ft/sec) for optimum concrete with fly ash. The control concrete subjected to

standard curing exhibited an increase of pulse velocity from 100% at 14 days to 106.95%

at 64 days. The optimum concrete without fly ash subjected to standard curing exhibited

an increase of pulse velocity from 100% at 14 days to 107.65% at 64 days. The optimum

concrete with fly ash subjected to standard curing exhibited an increase of pulse velocity

from 100% at 14 days to 108.44% at 64 days.

The mean expansions of the specimens subjected to freeze thaw and standard

curing were measured and are given in Table A34 (Appendix A). The corresponding

graph is shown in Figure 4.20. The mean expansions for control concrete, optimum

concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 0.02850%, 0.01725%

and 0.01300% when exposed to 300 cycles of freezing and thawing. The mean expansion

was greater for the control concrete when compared to the optimum mixes.

14000

14500

15000

15500

16000

16500

17000

17500

18000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330

Freeze thaw cycles

Puls

e ve

loci

ty(f

t/sec

)

Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete subjected to freeze thaw

Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete with fly ash subjected to freeze thaw

Control Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete subjected to freeze thaw

Control Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete subjected to standard curing

Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete subjected to standard curing

Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete with fly ash subjected to standardcuring

Figure 4.19: Change in Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete specimens with

Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing

154

0.0000

0.0050

0.0100

0.0150

0.0200

0.0250

0.0300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Mea

n ex

pans

ion

(%)

Control Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete subjected to Freeze thaw curing

Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete subjected to Freeze thaw curing

Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete with fly ash subjected to Freezethaw curingOptimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete with fly ash subjected toStandard curingOptimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete subjected Standard curing

Control Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete subjected to Standard curing

Figure 4.20: Comparison of Mean Expansion for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard

Curing

The durability factor for all the three mixes were calculated from 0 cycles to 300

cycles of freeze thaw and standard cured specimens. The durability factor for the control

concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are given

in Table IQ13 (Appendix I). The control concrete exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited

a reduction in durability factor from 100 at 0 cycles (14 days) to 91.40 at 300 cycles (64

days). The optimum concrete without fly ash exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited a

reduction in durability factor from 100 at 0 cycles to 90.88 at 300 cycles. The optimum

concrete with fly ash exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited reduction in durability

factor from 100 at 0 cycles to 90.32 at 300 cycles. The durability factors for the

specimens subjected to standard curing were also observed. The control concrete

subjected to standard curing exhibited an increase in durability factor from 100 at 14 days

to 114.4 at 64 days. The optimum concrete without fly ash subjected to standard curing

exhibited an increase in durability factor from 100 at 14 days to 115.89 at 64 days. The

optimum concrete with fly ash subjected to standard curing exhibited an increase in

155

durability factor from 100 at 14 days to 117.60 at 64 days. All the concretes including

control and optimum mixes had durability in the range of 90 – 92 indicating very good

freeze thaw resistance (ASTM C 494 sets the minimum durability factor at 80%). The

mean expansion for optimum concretes was less compared to control concrete when

subjected to freezing and thawing. The mean expansion was very less for all the

concretes and was in the range of 0.00125% - 0.02825%. The accepted failure criterion is

0.1% expansion.

The saturated surface dry absorption coefficient is defined as the ratio of weight

of moisture to the dry weight expressed as percentage. The saturated surface dry

absorption coefficient for the three mixes is shown in Table 4.4. The saturated surface dry

absorption coefficient was calculated for all the mixes after the completion of 300 cycles

of freezing and thawing. The absorption coefficients for control concrete, optimum

concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash after 300 cycles of freezing

and thawing were 2.40%, 2.18% and 1.71 %. The absorption coefficients for control

concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash after 64

days of standard curing were 2.09%, 1.99% and 1.62 %.

Table 4.4: Saturated surface dry Absorption coefficient for Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete

Mix Specimen No of cycles Age at Testing AbsorptionID Curing (Days) Coefficient

by weight(%)

CQB Freeze Thaw 300 64 2.42

Standard 64 2.12

OQB Freeze Thaw 300 64 2.21

Standard 64 2.04

OQFB Freeze Thaw 300 64 1.74

Standard 64 1.68

Standard Curing- Specim ens placed in the Moist Curing roomFreeze Thaw- Specimens subjected to Freeze Thaw cycles

156

4.2.3 Mix used for creep of concrete.

4.2.3.1 Fresh Concrete Properties

Mix 3 was used for the study of creep of concrete. Three mixes were made,

control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash.

The slumps were 88.9 mm (3.5 in.) for control concrete, 76.2 mm (3 in.) for optimum

concrete without fly ash and 88.9 mm (3.5 in.) for optimum concrete with fly ash. For the

optimum concrete with fly ash, there was a replacement of 20% by weight of cement with

25% percent by weight of fly ash. A medium range water reducer was used for the

optimum concrete with fly ash mixes. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure

HQ1 (Appendix H).


ash was 6.4%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 6.2%. Both the control concrete

and optimum concrete with out fly ash had slightly higher air content compared to the

optimum concrete with fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure HQ4

(Appendix H).



optimum concrete with fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure HQ7

(Appendix H).


mixing of concrete.

4.2.3.2 Creep and Shrinkage

The creep strains were determined by subtracting initial elastic strain at loading

and shrinkage strain from the total strain of a loaded specimen. The creep strains plotted

are the average of six values measured on two diametrically opposite faces of three

cylinders. The creep data are given in Tables HQ1, HQ4 and HQ7 (Appendix H).

The stress level applied was 5.51 Mpa (800 psi). The stress-strength ratios for the

control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash

were 15.35%, 14.91% and 12.35% respectively for compressive strengths of 35.92 MPa

157

(5211 psi), 36.98 MPa (5364 psi) and 44.62 MPa (6473 psi). The total unit creep strains

for control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly

ash were 465 x 10-6 in/in, 378 x 10-6 in/in and 343 x 10-6 in/in respectively at the end of

60 days. The control concrete had the highest total unit creep strain of 465 x 10-6 in./in. at

an age of 60 days. The total unit strains and unit shrinkage strains for all the three mixes

are shown in Figures HQ1, HQ4 and HQ7 (Appendix H) and Figure 4.21. The unit

specific creep for all the three mixes is shown in Figure 4.22. The creep rate for all the

three mixes is shown in Figure 4.23.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit S

trai

n (1

0̂-6

, in/

in)

0

CQB Total Unit StrainOQB Total Unit StrainOQFB Total Unit StrainCQB Unit Shrinkage StrainOQB Unit Shrinkage StrainOQFB Unit Shrinkage Strain

Figure 4.21: Total Unit strain and Unit Shrinkage strains for all the three concretes with Quartzite Aggregate at the end of 60 days

158

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Time in Days

Uni

t Spe

cific

Cre

ep, 1

0-6 in

/in/p

si

CQB Stress-Strength Ratio :15.35%OQB Stress-Strength Ratio :14.91%OQFB Stress-Strength Ratio:12.35%

Figure 4.22: Comparison of Unit Specific Creep at the end of 60 days for concrete

with Quartzite Aggregate

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 1 10

Time in Days

Cre

ep R

ate,

10-6

100

CQB

OQB

OQFB

Figure 4.23: Comparison of Creep rate for the Bridge deck concrete with Quartzite

Aggregate

159

The unit creep strain and unit specific creep were less for the optimum concrete

with fly ash at any time after loading. From the results obtained, the decrease in creep

strains for the optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash may

be due to a relatively higher rate of strength gain after the day of loading, when compared


4.2.3.3 Creep Recovery

Strain recovery measurements after unloading were taken on all the creep

specimens after 60 days of loading. The creep recovery was observed for 10 days for all

the three mixes. The values of strain measurement for the control concrete, optimum

concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are given in Tables HQ10,

HQ13 and HQ16 (Appendix H) respectively. The elastic recovery and creep recovery for

all the three mixes are shown in Figures HQ10, HQ13 and HQ16 (Appendix H). The

creep strain and creep recovery strain for the three mixes is shown in Figure 4.24.

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 8

Time in Days

Uni

t cre

ep st

rain

(10^

-6, i

n/in

)

0

CQB OQB OQFB

Figure 4.24: Comparison of Unit Creep Strain and Unit Elastic and Creep Recovery

on Unloading for Quartzite Aggregate

160

The initial unit elastic recovery for control concrete, optimum concrete without

fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 133 x 10-6 -6 in/in, 142 x 10 in/in and 143

x 10-6 in/in. The initial unit elastic recoveries for the three mixes were 83%, 83% and

84% of the initial unit elastic strain. The unit creep recoveries for the control concrete,

optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 55 x 10-6, 47 x

10-6 -6 and 45 x 10 . The unit creep recovery for control concrete was 17%, for optimum

concrete without fly ash was 20% and for optimum concrete with fly ash was 23%.

Regardless of the strength of concrete, most of the creep recovery takes place

during the first few days after unloading. Thereafter, the rate of creep recovery decreased

considerably. Based on the strain recovery results for approximately same stress-strength

ratio, the initial unit elastic strain recovery and unit creep strain recovery were greater,

the higher the strength of concrete.

4.3 Limestone Aggregates 4.3.1 Mix used for Strength Development, Flexure, Alkali Aggregate Reactivity and Freeze Thaw Resistance: 4.3.1.1 Fresh Concrete Properties:

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0


Mix

Slum

p (in

ch)

Figure 4.25: Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone

Aggregate (Mix 2)

161

Mix 2 was used for the study of strength development of concrete and alkali

aggregate reactivity. Three mixes were made control concrete, optimum concrete without

fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The slumps were 50.8 mm (2.0 in.) for control

concrete, 55.9 mm (2.2 in.) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 50.8 mm (2.0 in.)

for optimum concrete with fly ash. It should be noted that there was a replacement of

20% by weight of cement with 25% by weight of fly ash for the optimum concrete with

fly ash mix. A medium range water reducer was used for the optimum concrete with fly

ash mixes. A bar chart comparison of the slumps is shown in Figure 4.25.

Figure 4.26: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone

Aggregate (Mix 2)


ash was 5.4%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 5.6%. The optimum mix with

fly ash had higher air content compared to the optimum and control concretes. A bar

chart comparison of the Air Contents is shown in Figure 4.26



optimum concrete with fly ash. A bar chart comparison of the Unit Weight is shown in

Figure 4.27.

162

The ambient temperature was 21.10 C (70 F) for all the mixes. The humidity

varied from 30% to 45%. The concrete temperatures for the trial mixes are given in Table

AL14 and for the final mixes are given in Table AL17.

Figure 4.27: Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone

Aggregate (Mix 2)

4.3.1.2 Hardened Concrete Properties

4.3.1.2.1 Compressive Strength


days for 100 mm x 200 mm (4 in. x 8 in.) specimens. The 28-day strength results are

given in Table AQ1. The bar chart is shown in Figure AQ1. The final mix was selected

based on the workability and strength.




concretes was compared to the control concrete. The results are given in Tables BQ1,

BQ4 and BQ7. Table BQ1 gives the results of compressive strength for control concrete,

Table BQ4 for optimum concrete without fly ash and Table BQ7 gives the results of



163



0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1 Day 3 Day 7 Day 14 Day 28 Day 56 Day 90 DayAge (Days)

Com

pres

sive

Stre

ngth

(psi

)CLB OLB OLFB

Figure 4.28: Comparison of Compressive Strength for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Limestone Aggregate The 1 day to 90 day compressive strength of the concretes increased from 19.17

MPa (2781 psi) to 37.68 MPa (5465 psi) for the control limestone bridge deck concrete,

17.02 MPa (2469 psi) to 39.02 MPa (5660 psi) for the optimum limestone bridge deck


optimum limestone bridge deck concrete with fly ash.

The control concrete had the highest 1-day compressive strength of 19.17 Mpa

(2781 psi). The 1-day compressive strengths for optimum concrete without fly ash and

optimum concrete with fly ash were 11% and 9% less than that of the control concrete.




for control concrete and optimum concrete without fly ash were 0.3% and 4.3% less than

that of the optimum concrete with fly ash.



164


for control concrete and optimum concrete with fly ash were 5% and 12% more than that

of the optimum concrete without fly ash.











The 56-day compressive strength for the control concrete, optimum concrete










4.3.1.2.2 Static Modulus:

Testing was done on 100 mm x 200 mm (4 in. x 8 in.) specimens at 28, 56 and 90

days for static modulus. Three specimens were tested for each mix. The results are given

in Tables BQ10, BQ13 and BQ16. Table BQ10 gives the results of static modulus for

control concrete, Table B13 for optimum concrete without fly ash and Table B16 gives

the results of optimum concrete with fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is shown in

Figure 4.29.

165

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

28 Day 56 Day 90 Day

Age (Days)

Stat

ic M

odul

us (x

106 p

si)

CLB OLB OLFB

Figure 4.29: Comparison of Static Modulus for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Limestone Aggregate

The static modulus values ranged from 3.30 x 104 Mpa (4.79 x 106 psi) to 3.63 x

104 Mpa (5.26 x 106 psi) for control concrete, 3.49 x 104 Mpa (5.07 x 106 psi) to 3.69 x

104 Mpa (5.36 x 106 4 psi) for optimum concrete without fly ash and from 3.70 x 10 Mpa




4.3.1.2.3 Dry Unit Weight:


BL2, BL5 and BL8. The average dry unit weight varied from 2210 Kg/m3 3 (138 lb/ft ) to

2419 Kg/m3 (151 lb/ft3). The control quartzite bridge deck concrete had the lowest dry

unit weight of 2210 Kg/m3 3 (138 lb/ft ) compared to the optimum quartzite bridge deck

concrete without & with fly ash. A bar chart showing dry unit weights at the end of 90

days is shown in Figure 4.30.

166

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160


Mix

Dry

Uni

t Wei

ght (

lb/ft

3 )

Figure 4.30: Comparison of Dry Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Limestone Aggregate

4.3.1.2.4 Modulus of Rupture (Flexural Strength)




concrete with fly ash. The results are given in Table BQ10, BQ13 and BQ17. The








without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 5% and 18% more than that of


167

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

14 Day 28 Day

Age (Days)

Flex

ural

Stre

ngth

(psi

)

CLB OLB OLFB

Figure 4.31: Comparison of Flexural Strength for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Limestone Aggregate The 28 day flexural strengths of control concrete, optimum concrete without fly


4.56 Mpa (662 psi) respectively. The 28-day flexural strength for optimum concrete

without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 5% and 14% respectively more

than that for the control concrete.

4.3.1.2.5 Alkali Aggregate Reactivity:




14 days for all the concretes. The results for trial mixes in which the cement content was

reduced to 15% are given in Tables FL2 (a), FL5 (a), FL8 (a) of Appendix F. The results

for the final mixes with 10 percent reduction in cement content are given in Tables FL2,

FL5 and FL8 (Appendix F). Table FL2 (a) gives the mean percent expansion for the trial

mix of control concrete, Table FL5 (a) gives mean percent expansion for trial mix of

optimum concrete without fly ash and Table FL8 (a) gives mean percent expansion for

trial mix of optimum concrete with fly ash. Table FL2 gives the mean percent expansion

for final mix of control concrete, Table FL5 gives mean percent expansion for the final

mix of optimum concrete without fly ash and Table FL8 gives mean percent expansion

168

for the final mix of optimum concrete with fly ash. The maximum expansion at the end of

14 days was observed for control concrete, and the minimum was observed for the


The trial mix control concrete had a percentage expansion of 0.18238%, the trial

mix optimum concrete without fly ash had an expansion of 0.14250%, and the trial mix

optimum concrete with fly ash had a mean expansion of 0.03725%, at the end of 14 days.

The final mix control concrete had a percentage expansion of 0.13625%, the final mix

optimum concrete without fly ash had an expansion of 0.11650%, and final mix optimum

concrete with fly ash had a mean expansion of 0.06975%, at the end of 14 days. The

optimum concrete with fly ash had lesser mean expansion when compared to optimum

concrete without fly ash and control concrete. The optimum concrete mixes performed

better than the control concrete at all ages. The optimum concrete with fly ash had better

resistance to the alkali solution, when compared to the control concrete and optimum

concrete without fly ash. The mean expansions of the trial mixes and final mixes of

control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash, at

all ages are given in Table 4.5.and 4.5.1.


the mean percentage expansions of trial mixes of optimum concrete without fly ash and

optimum concrete with fly ash, when compared to the control concrete at the end of 14

days. From the final mix results it can be observed that there were reductions of 14% and

49% in the mean percentage expansions of mixes of optimum concrete without fly ash

and optimum concrete with fly ash, when compared to the control concrete at the end of

14 days. The addition of fly ash had reduced the mean percentage expansion, and

increased the resistance of concrete to alkali attack. The results are shown in Figure 4.32

and 4.33.

Table 4.5: Summary of mean percent expansion of Alkali Aggregate specimens of trial mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete

Mix ID Mix Description Percent Expansion after3 Days 7 Days 11 Days 14 Days

CLBT - 15% Control Limestone Bridge Deck Trial 0.01088 0.07413 0.15300 0.18239OLBT - 15% Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Trial without Fly Ash 0.00950 0.04563 0.10450 0.14250OFLBT - 15% Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Trial with Fly Ash 0.00825 0.02150 0.03000 0.03725

169

Table 4.5.1: Summary of mean percent expansion of Alkali Aggregate specimens

for Final Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

Mix ID Mix Description Percent Expansion after3 Days 7 Days 11 Days 14 Days

CLB Control Limestone Bridge Deck 0.01850 0.06788 0.12388 0.13625OLB Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck without Fly Ash 0.01513 0.05538 0.10313 0.11650OFLB Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck with Fly Ash 0.01288 0.02075 0.05925 0.06975

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Age(Days)

Mea

n Ex

pans

ion

(%)

CLBT - 15% OLBT - 15% OLFBT - 15%

Innocous

Deleterious

Innocous & Deleterious

Figure 4.32: Comparison of Alkali Aggregate Reactivity for Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

170

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Age(Days)

Mea

n Ex

pans

ion

(%)

CLB OLB OLFB

Inno

cous

Del

eter

ious

Inno

cous

&D

elet

erio

us

Figure 4.33: Comparison of Alkali Aggregate Reactivity for Final Bridge Deck

Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

4.3.1.3 Freeze Thaw Resistance:


concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are given in Tables IL3 and

IL4 (Appendix I). The corresponding graph is shown in Figure 4.34. The pulse velocity

after 300 cycles of freezing and thawing for the control concrete was 4369 m/s (14335





for all the three mixes are given in Table IL9 (Appendix I). The control concrete exposed

to freeze thaw cycles exhibited a reduction of pulse velocity from 100% at 0 cycles to

94.95% at 300 cycles. The optimum concrete without fly ash exposed to freeze thaw

cycles exhibited a reduction of pulse velocity from 100% at 0 cycles to 95.42% at 300

cycles. The optimum concrete with fly ash exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited


171

velocities for the specimens subjected to standard curing were also observed. The pulse










curing were measured and are given in Table IL10 (Appendix I). The corresponding





14000

14500

15000

15500

16000

16500

17000

17500

18000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330

Freeze thaw cycles

Puls

e ve

loci

ty(f

t/sec

)

OLB subjected to freeze thaw

OLFB subjected to freeze thaw

CLB subjected to freeze thaw

CLB subjected to standard curing

OLB subjected to standard curing

OLFB subjected to standard curing

Figure 4.34: Change in Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Limestone Aggregates subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing

172

0.000000

0.005000

0.010000

0.015000

0.020000

0.025000

0.030000

0.035000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Freeze Thaw Cycles

Mea

n ex

pans

ion

(%)

CLB subjected to Freeze thaw curing

OLB subjected to Freeze thaw curing

OLFB subjected to Freeze thaw curing

OLFB subjected to Standard curing

OLB subjected Standard curing

CLB subjected to Standard curing

Figure 4.35: Comparison of Mean Expansion for Bridge Deck Concrete specimens

with Limestone Aggregates subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing




in Table IL14 (Appendix I). The control concrete exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited











173


control and optimum mixes had durability in the range of 88 – 90 indicating very good





0.1% expansion.



absorption coefficient for the three mixes is shown in Table 4.6. The saturated surface dry

absorption coefficient was calculated for all the mixes after the completion of 300 cycles

of freezing and thawing. The absorption coefficients for control concrete, optimum





Table 4.6: Saturated Surface Dry Absorption Coefficient for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

Mix ID Specimen No. of cycles Age at Testing Absorption Curing Coefficient

by weight(%)

CLB Freeze Thaw 300 64 2.24Standard 64 1.98

OLB Freeze Thaw 300 64 2.05Standard 64 1.89

OLFB Freeze Thaw 300 64 1.54Standard 64 1.46

174

4.3.2 Mix used for Initial and Final Setting Times, Deicer Scaling and Sulfate

Resistance of Concrete:

4.3.2.1 Fresh Concrete Properties: The trial mixes in which an attempt was made to reduce the cement content by

15% was also used to study the setting times of concrete. The slumps for the three trial

mixes were 76.2 mm (3.0 in.) for trial control concrete, 73.7 mm (2.9 in.) for trial

optimum concrete without fly ash, 101.6 mm (4.0 in) for trial optimum concrete with fly

ash. Mix 3 was used for the study of setting times of final bridge deck concrete. Mix 3

was used to study the results of initial and final setting time, deicer chemicals and sulfate

resistance of concrete. Three mixes were made, control concrete, optimum concrete

without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The slumps were 76.2 mm (3.0 in.)

for control concrete, 68.6 mm (2.7 in.) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 76.2

mm (3.0 in.) for optimum concrete with fly ash. For the optimum concrete with fly ash,

there was a replacement of 20% by weight of cement with 25% percent by weight of fly

ash. A medium range water reducer was used for the optimum concrete with fly ash

mixes. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure AL69 (Appendix A).

The air content for trial control concrete was 5.8%, 5.2 for trial optimum mix

without fly ash, and 6.8% for trial optimum mix with fly ash. The optimum with fly ash

had higher air content compared to the other two mixes. The corresponding bar chart is

shown in Figure AL45 (Appendix A).


ash was 6.0%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 6.8%. The optimum with fly ash



The unit weights of trial mixes were 2371 kg/m3 3 (148 lb/ft ) for trial control

concrete, 2371 kg/m3 3 (148 lb/ft ) for trial optimum concrete without fly ash and 2323

kg/m3 (145 lb/ft3) for optimum concrete with fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is


The unit weights for final mixes were 2355 kg/m3 (147 lb/ft3) for control concrete,

2371 kg/m3 (148 lb/ft3) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 2371 kg/m3 3 (148 lb/ft )

175

for optimum concrete with fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure AL75

(Appendix A).


mixing of concrete for trial mixes.


mixing of concrete for final bridge deck concrete.

4.3.2.2 Initial and Final Setting Time: The main objective was to determine the initial and final setting times of concrete,

by sieving the mortar from the concrete. The penetration resistances recorded

corresponding to the elapsed times are given in Tables CL4 (a), CL5 (a) and CL6 (a) for

trial bridge deck concrete with limestone aggregate. The penetration resistances recorded

corresponding to the elapsed times are given in Tables CL4, CL5 and CL6 for final

bridge deck concrete with limestone aggregate. The time vs. penetration graphs for trial

mixes are shown in figures CL2 (a), CL5 (a) and CL8 (a) (Appendix C). The time vs.

penetration graphs for final mixes are shown in figures CL2, CL5, CL8 (Appendix

C).The initial setting time for the limestone bridge deck trial mixes ranged from 228

minutes to 368 minutes. The initial setting time for the limestone bridge deck final mixes

ranged from 217 minutes to 366 minutes. For the trial mixes the optimum concrete

without fly ash had lesser initial setting time compared to control and optimum with fly

ash concretes. For the final mixes the control concrete had lesser initial setting time

compared to both the optimum mixes with and without fly ash. The final setting time for

the limestone bridge deck trial mixes ranged from 259 minutes to 393 minutes. The final

setting time for the limestone bridge deck final mixes ranged from 273 minutes to 391

minutes .For the trial mixes the optimum concrete without fly ash had lesser final setting

time compared to control and optimum with fly ash concretes. For the final mixes the

control concrete had lesser final setting time compared to optimum without fly ash and

optimum with fly ash concretes. The summary of the setting times for bridge deck

concrete with limestone aggregates is given in Tables 4.7 and 4.7.1.

. The bar charts for initial and final setting times for both the trial and final bridge

deck concrete with limestone aggregates are shown in Figures 4.36, 4.37, 4.38 and 4.39.

176

Table 4.7: Summary of Initial and Final Setting Times of Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

Mix ID Mix Description Initial Setting Final Setting

Time Time(mins) (mins)

CLBT Control Limestone Bridge Deck Trial 252 280OLBT - 15% Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Trial without Fly Ash 228 259

OLFBT - 15% Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Trial with Fly Ash 368 393

Table 4.7.1: Summary of Initial and Final Setting Times of Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

Mix ID Mix Description Initial Setting Final SettingTime Time(mins) (mins)

CLB Control Limestone Bridge Deck 217 273OLB Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck without Fly Ash 260 317

OLFB Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck with Fly Ash 366 391

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

CLBT OLBT - 15% OLFBT - 15%

Mix

Tim

e (m

in)

Figure 4.36: Comparison of Initial Setting Time for Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

177

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

CLB OLB OLFB

Mix

Tim

e (m

in)

Figure 4.37: Comparison of Initial Setting Time for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

CLBT OLBT - 15% OLFBT - 15%

Mix

Tim

e (m

in)

Figure 4.38: Comparison of Final Setting Time for Trial Bridge Deck Concrete

with Limestone Aggregate

178

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

CLB OLB OLFB

Mix

Tim

e (m

in)

Figure 4.39: Comparison of Final Setting Time for Bridge Deck Concrete

with Limestone Aggregate The addition of fly ash increased the initial and final setting times for bridge deck

concrete with limestone aggregates. The ambient temperature and humidity were noted

for all the mixes.

4.3.2.3 Sulfate Resistance of Concrete:

The mean expansion of mortar bars exposed to sodium sulfate solution having a

pH of 7.2 was studied. Six specimens of size 286 mm x 25 mm x 25 mm (11.25 in x 1 in

x 1 in) were exposed to the sulfate solution and the average expansions of the six

specimens were noted. The results of the mean expansion for bridge deck concrete with

limestone aggregate are given in Tables DL2, DL5 and DL8.

The mean expansions of control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly

ash concretes at the end of 15 weeks were 0.02592%, 0.02325% and 0.02108%

respectively. It can be observed that the average expansion of specimens increased with

respect to time. The optimum concrete with fly ash had lesser mean expansion compared

179

to control concrete and optimum concrete without fly ash. It can be concluded that the

addition of fly ash had increased the resistance of concrete to sulfate solution.

The addition of fly ash resists the ettringite formation, which is formed in





There were reductions of 10% and 19% in the mean expansions of optimum

concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash, when compared to that of the

control concrete. The results are shown in Figure 4.40.

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Immersion Age (Weeks)

Mea

n Ex

pans

ion

(%)

CLB OLB OLFB

Figure 4.40: Mean Sulfate Expansions for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Limestone Aggregate

4.3.2.4 Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals:







180




Table 4.8: Comparison of Scaling Resistance for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

Mix ID ASTM Rating ASTM ClassificationSpecimen 1 Specimen 2

CLB 1 1 Very Light ScalingOLB 1 1 Very Light Scaling

OLFB 0 0 No Scaling The optimum concrete with fly ash had performed better than the control concrete

and optimum concrete without fly ash. There was no scaling observed for the optimum

concrete with fly ash. The control concrete and optimum concrete without fly ash had

very light scaling at the end of 50 cycles of freezing and thawing in the presence of

Calcium Chloride solution.





(calcium chloride solution)

Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete

Figure 4.41 : Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete – After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in presence of Deicing Chemicals.

181

Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete Without Fly Ash

Figure 4.42: Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash – After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in presence of Deicing Chemicals.

Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash

Figure 4.43: Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash – After 50 cycles of Freezing and Thawing in presence of Deicing Chemicals.

182

4.3.3 Mix used for Rapid Chloride Permeability, Drying Shrinkage

and Creep of Concrete:

4.3.3.1 Fresh Concrete Properties: The trial mixes in which an attempt was made to reduce the cement content by

15% was also used to study and compare their chloride permeability and drying

shrinkage results with the final mix concretes. The slumps for the three trial mixes were

76.2 mm (3.0 in.) for trial control concrete, 73.7 mm (2.9 in.) for trial optimum concrete

without fly ash, 101.6 mm (4.0 in) for trial optimum concrete with fly ash. The fresh

concrete properties and the compressive strengths of the trial mixes are given in Table

AL14 and AL20 of Appendix A. Mix 1 was used for the study of chloride permeability,

drying shrinkage and creep of concrete. Three mixes were made, control concrete,

optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The slumps were

38.1 mm (1.5 in.) for control concrete, 55.9 mm (2.2 in.) for optimum concrete without

fly ash and 81.3 mm (3.2 in.) for optimum concrete with fly ash. For the optimum

concrete with fly ash, there was a replacement of 20% by weight of cement with 25% by

weight of fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure AL51 (Appendix A).


ash was 5.2%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 5.6%. The optimum concrete

with fly ash had higher air content compared to the other two mixes. The corresponding

bar chart is shown in Figure AL54 (Appendix A).



optimum concrete with fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure AL57

(Appendix A).


mixing of concrete.




183



4.3.3.2 Chloride Permeability Test:


concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The results for the trial

mixes are given in Table EL2 (a) and the results for final mixes are given in Table EL2.

At 56 days, the trial control concrete had a chloride permeability value of 7200

coulombs, which is classified as “High”, the trial optimum concrete without fly ash had a

permeability value of 6320 coulombs, which is classified as “High”, and the trial


“Moderate”.



permeability value of 5879 coulombs, which is classified as “High”, and the optimum

with fly ash had a permeability value of 3410 coulombs, which is classified as

“Moderate”.

At 90 days, the trial control concrete had a chloride permeability value of 6980

coulombs, which is classified as “High”, the trial optimum concrete without fly ash had a

permeability value of 5890 coulombs, which is classified as “High”, and the trial


“Moderate”. The bar chart showing the results of chloride permeability at 56 and 90 days

is shown in Figure 4.44.

At 90 days, the control concrete had a chloride permeability value of 6890 coulombs,

which is classified as “High”, the optimum concrete without fly ash had a permeability

value of 5540 coulombs, which is classified as “High”, and the optimum with fly ash had

a permeability value of 3190 coulombs, which is classified as “Moderate”. The bar chart

showing the results of chloride permeability at 56 and 90 days is shown in Figure 4.45.





184

Figure 4.44: Comparison of Permeability values for trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

Figure 4.45: Comparison of Permeability values for Bridge Deck Concrete

with Limestone Aggregate

185

4.3.3.3 Drying Shrinkage Deformations:

The shrinkage deformations of the concrete specimens for trial and final control

concrete and the optimum concrete mixes were evaluated. Three specimens of size 286

mm x 75 mm x 75 mm (11.25 in x 3 in x 3 in) per mix were used to evaluate the

shrinkage deformations. The measured shrinkage deformations and the duration over

which they have been taken are given in Table GL2 (a) Appendix G. The time vs. drying

shrinkage deformations for the three trial mixes are shown in Figure 4.46, and the time

vs. drying shrinkage deformations for the three final mixes are shown in Figure 4.47.

At the end of 60 days, the trial control concrete had the highest unit shrinkage

strain of 382 x 10-6, optimum concrete without fly ash had 333 x 10-6, and optimum

concrete with fly ash had 297 x 10-6. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure

4.48.



fly ash had 293 x 10-6. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure 4.49.

The optimum concrete with fly ash had the least shrinkage strain of all the three mixes.

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Time in Days

Shrin

kage

Def

orm

atio

n,10

-6 in

/in

CLBT -15% OLBT -15% OLFBT -15%

Figure 4.46: Comparisons of Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Trial Bridge Deck

Concrete with Limestone Aggregates

186

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Time in Days

Shrin

kage

Def

orm

atio

n,10

-6 in

/inCLB OLB OLFB

Figure 4.47: Comparisons of Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

CLBT - 15% OLBT - 15% OLFBT - 15%

Mix

Shrin

kage

Def

orm

atio

ns ,1

06 in/in

Figure 4.48: Comparisons of Drying Shrinkage Deformations at the end of 90 days

for Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates

187

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

CLB OLB OLFB

Mix

Shrin

kage

Def

orm

atio

ns ,1

06 in/in

Figure 4.49: Comparisons of Drying Shrinkage Deformations at the end of 90 days

for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates

There were reductions of 13% and 22% in the shrinkage deformations for trial

optimum concrete without fly ash and trial optimum concrete with fly ash respectively

when compared to that of the control concrete, at the end of 60 days.

There were reductions of 16% and 25% in the shrinkage deformations for final

optimum concrete without fly ash and final optimum concrete with fly ash respectively

when compared to that of the control concrete, at the end of 60 days

The use of well-graded aggregate led to the reduction in cement content and

hence there was a reduction in the drying shrinkage of concrete.

4.3.3.4 Creep and Shrinkage:




cylinders. The creep data are given in Tables HL2, HL5 and HL8 (Appendix H).



188

were 16%, 15% and 14% respectively for compressive strengths of 34.53 MPa (5008

psi), 35.98 MPa (5218 psi) and 38.46 MPa (5578 psi). The total unit creep strains for


were 465 x 10-6 in/in, 378 x 10-6 in/in and 358 x 10-6 in/in respectively at the end of 60

days. The control concrete had the highest total unit creep strain of 465 x 10-6 in./in. at an

age of 60 days. The total unit strains and unit shrinkage strains for all the three mixes are

shown in Figures HL2, HL5 and HL7 (Appendix H) and Figure 4.50. The unit specific

creep for all the three mixes is shown in Figure 4.51. The creep rate for all the three

mixes is shown in Figure 4.52.





to the control concrete.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Time in Days

Tota

l Uni

t Stra

in,(1

0-6 in

/in)

OLFB Total Unit StrainOLFB Unit Shrinkage StrainOLB Total Unit StrainOLB Unit Shrinkage StrainCLB Total Unit StrainCLB Unit Shrinkage Strain

Figure 4.50: Comparison of Total Unit Strains and Unit Shrinkage Strains

for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates

189

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Time in Days

Uni

t Spe

cific

Cre

ep, 1

0-6 in

/in/p

si

CLB (5008 psi) Stress-StrengthRatio = 16.13%

OLB(5218 psi) Stress-StrengthRatio = 15.49%

OLFB(5578 psi) Stress StrengthRatio = 14.49%

Figure 4.51: Comparison of Unit Specific Creep for Bridge Deck Concrete

with Limestone Aggregates

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 1 10 100Time in Days

Cre

ep R

ate,

10-6

CLBOLBOLFB

Figure 4.52: Creep Rate for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates

190

4.3.3.4.1 Creep Recovery:




concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are given in Tables HL11,

HL14 and HL17 (Appendix H) respectively. The elastic recovery and creep recovery for

all the three mixes are shown in Figures HL11, HL14 and HL17 (Appendix H). The creep

strain and creep recovery strain for the three mixes is shown in Figure 4.53.








0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Time in Days

Uni

t Cre

ep S

train

, 10-6

in/in

CLBOLBOLFB

Age at Unloading = 60 Days

Figure 4.53: Comparison of Unit Creep Strain and Unit Elastic Strain and Creep

Recovery on Unloading for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates

191






4.4 Granite Aggregate:

4.4.1 Mix Used for Strength Development, Sulfate Resistance to Concrete and Chloride Permeability: 4.4.1.1 Fresh Concrete Properties:

Mix 1 was used for the study of strength development of concrete, sulfate

resistance to concrete and chloride permeability. Three mixes were made, control

concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The

slumps were 71.1 mm (2.8 in.) for control concrete, 38.1 mm (1.5 in.) for optimum

concrete without fly ash and 25.4 mm (1 in.) for optimum concrete with fly ash. There

was a replacement of 20% by weight of cement with 25% by weight of fly ash for the

optimum concrete with fly ash mix. A medium range water reducer was used for the

optimum concrete with fly ash mixes. The bar chart is shown in Figure 4.54.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly Ash

Mix

Slum

p (in

.)

Figure 4.54: Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 1) with Granite

Aggregates

192

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0


Mix

Air

Con

tent

(%)

Figure 4.55: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 1)

with Granite Aggregates


ash was 5.4%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 5.4%. The control concrete had

higher air content compared to the optimum concretes. The bar chart is shown in Figure

4.55.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180


Mix

Uni

t Wei

ght (

lb/ft

3 )

Figure 4.56: Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 1)


193


ash was 5.4%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 5.4%. The control concrete had

higher air content compared to the optimum concretes. The bar chart is shown in Figure

4.55.



optimum concrete with fly ash. The comparison is shown in Figure 4.56.

The ambient temperature was 18.30 C (65 F) for all the mixes. The humidity was

40% for all the mixes. The concrete temperatures for the trial mixes are given in Table

AG15 and for the final mixes are given in Table AG18.

4.4.1.2 Hardened Concrete Properties:

4.4.1.2.1 Compressive Strength:


days. The 28-day strength results are given in Table AG21. The bar chart is shown in

Figure BG3. The final mix was selected based on the required workability and strength.




concretes was compared to the control concrete. The results are given in Tables BG3,

BG6 and BG9. Table BG3 gives the results of compressive strength for control concrete,

Table BG6 for optimum concrete without fly ash and Table BG9 gives the results of



194

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1 Day 3 Day 7 Day 14 Day 28 Day 56 Day 90 Day

Age (Days)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (p

si)

CGB OGB OGFB

Figure 4.57: Comparison of Compressive Strengths for Bridge Deck Concrete

with Granite Aggregate



The 1 day to 90 day compressive strength of the concretes increased from 14.50

MPa (2101 psi) to 38.25 MPa (5543 psi) for the control granite bridge deck concrete,

16.13 MPa (2337 psi) to 39.98 MPa (5794 psi) for the optimum granite bridge deck


optimum granite bridge deck concrete with fly ash.

The optimum concrete with fly ash had the highest 1-day compressive strength of

17.28 Mpa (2504 psi). The 1-day compressive strengths for optimum concrete without fly

ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 11% and 19% more than that of the control

concrete.

The 3-day compressive strengths for the control concrete, optimum concrete without

fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 21.28 MPa (3084 psi), 24.12 MPa (3496

psi) and 26.97 MPa (3909 psi) respectively. The 3-day compressive strengths for

195

optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 13% and 27%

more than that of the control concrete.
















The 56-day compressive strength for the control concrete, optimum concrete without










196

4.4.1.2.2 Static Modulus:

Testing was done at 28, 56 and 90 days for static modulus. Three specimens were

tested for each mix. The results are given in Tables BG3, BG6 and BG9. Table BG3

gives the results of static modulus for control concrete, Table BG6 for optimum concrete

without fly ash and Table BG9 gives the results of optimum concrete with fly ash. The


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

28 Day 56 Day 90 Day

Age (Days)

Stat

ic M

odul

us (x

106 p

si)

CGB OGB OGFB

Figure 4.58: Comparison of Static Modulus for Bridge Deck Concrete

with Granite Aggregates The static modulus values ranged from 3.30 x 104 Mpa (4.78 x 106 psi) to 3.68 x

104 Mpa (5.33 x 106 psi) for control concrete, 3.54 x 104 Mpa (5.13 x 106 psi) to 3.75 x

104 Mpa (5.43 x 106 4 psi) for optimum concrete without fly ash and from 3.75 x 10 Mpa




4.4.1.2.3 Dry Unit Weight:


BG3, BG6 and BG9. The average dry unit weight varied from 2211 Kg/m3 (138 lb/ft3) to

197

2323 Kg/m3 (145 lb/ft3). The control granite bridge deck concrete had the lowest dry unit

weight of 2211 Kg/m3 (138 lb/ft3) compared to the optimum granite bridge deck concrete

without & with fly ash. A bar chart showing dry unit weights at the end of 90 days is

shown in Figure 4.59.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180


Mix

Dry

Uni

t Wei

ght (

lb/ft

3 )

Figure 4.59: Comparison of Dry Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete

with Granite Aggregates 4.4.1.2.4 Modulus of Rupture (Flexural Strength)




concrete with fly ash. The results are given in Table BG12, BG15 and BG18. The







198


without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 7% and 18% more than that of


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

14 Day 28 DayAge (Days)

Flex

ural

Str

engt

h (p

si)

CGB OGB OGFB

Figure 4.60: Comparison of Flexural Strengths for Bridge Deck Concrete

with Granite Aggregates The 28 day flexural strengths of control concrete, optimum concrete without fly


4.73 Mpa (685 psi) respectively. The 28-day flexural strength for optimum concrete

without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash were 4% and 13% respectively more

than that for the control concrete.

4.4.1.3 Sulfate Resistance:

The mean expansion of mortar bars exposed to sodium sulfate solution having a pH

of 7.2 was studied. Six specimens of size 286 mm x 25 mm x 25 mm (11.25 in x 1 in x 1

in) were exposed to the sulfate solution and the average expansions of the six specimens

were noted. The results of the mean expansion for bridge deck concrete with granite

aggregate are given in Tables DG3, DG6 and DG9.

The mean expansions of control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly ash

concretes at the end of 15 weeks were 0.02833%, 0.02458% and 0.02233% respectively.

199

It can be observed that the average expansion of specimens increased with respect to

time. The optimum concrete with fly ash had lesser mean expansion compared to control

concrete and optimum concrete without fly ash. It can be concluded that the addition of

fly ash had increased the resistance of concrete to sulfate solution.

There were reductions of 13% and 21% in the mean expansions of optimum concrete

without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash, when compared to that of the control

concrete. The results are shown in Figure 4.61.

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16Immersion Age (Weeks)

Mea

n E

xpan

sion

(%)

CGB OGB OGFB

Figure 4.61: Mean Sulfate Expansion for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite

Aggregates The addition of fly ash resists the ettringite formation, which is formed in





4.4.1.4 Chloride Permeability Test:


concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The results are given in

200

Table EG3. The bar chart showing the results of chloride permeability at 56 and 90 days

is shown in Figure 4.62.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly AshMix

Perm

eabi

lity

(Cou

lom

bs)

At 56 Days At 90 Days

Figure 4.62: Comparison of Chloride Permeability values for Bridge Deck Concrete


At 56 days, the control concrete had a chloride permeability value of 7432 coulombs,

which is classified as “High”, the optimum concrete without fly ash had a permeability

value of 6230 coulombs, which is classified as “High”, and the optimum with fly ash had

a permeability value of 3905 coulombs, which is classified as “Moderate”.



permeability value of 5900 coulombs, which is classified as “High”, and the optimum

with fly ash had a permeability value of 3648 coulombs, which is classified as

“Moderate”.





201

4.4.2 Mix used for Initial and Final Setting Times, Alkali Aggregate Reactivity and Freeze Thaw Resistance: 4.4.2.1 Fresh Concrete Properties:

Mix 2 was used for the study of initial and final setting times, alkali aggregate

reactivity and freeze thaw resistance. Three mixes were made, control concrete, optimum

concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The slumps were 38.1 mm

(1.5 in.) for control concrete, 38.1 mm (1.5 in.) for optimum concrete without fly ash and

25.4 mm (1.0 in.) for optimum concrete with fly ash. There was a replacement of 20% by

weight of cement with 25% by weight of fly ash for the optimum concrete with fly ash

mix. A medium range water reducer was used for the optimum concrete with fly ash

mixes. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure AG52 (Appendix A).

The air content for control concrete was 5.2%, for the optimum mix without fly ash

was 5.6%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 5.4%. The optimum without fly ash


shown in Figure AG55 (Appendix A).



optimum concrete with fly ash. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure AG58

(Appendix A).


mixing of concrete.






202

4.4.2.2 Initial and Final Setting Times

The main objective was to determine the initial and final setting times of concrete, by

sieving the mortar from the concrete. The penetration resistances recorded corresponding

to the elapsed times are given in Tables CG7, CG8 and CG9 for bridge deck concrete

with granite aggregate. The time vs. penetration graphs are shown in figures CG3, CG6

and CG9 (Appendix C). The initial setting time for the granite bridge deck mixes ranged

from 216 minutes to 361 minutes. The optimum concrete with fly ash had greater initial

setting time compared to control concrete and optimum concrete with fly ash. The final

setting times for the granite bride deck mixes ranged from 241 minutes to 392 minutes.

The optimum concrete with fly ash with granite aggregate had greater final setting time

compared to the control concrete and optimum concrete with fly ash. The summary of the

setting times for bridge deck concrete is given in Table 4.9.

The optimum granite bridge deck concrete with fly ash had higher initial and final

setting times compared to both control concrete and optimum concrete without fly ash.

Among the three mixes for bridge deck concrete, the control concrete had lesser initial

and final setting times when compared to the optimum granite bridge deck concrete

without fly ash. The bar charts for initial and final setting times for bridge deck concrete

are shown in Figures 4.63 and 4.64.

Table 4.9: Summary of Initial and Final Setting Times for Bridge Deck Concrete

With Granite Aggregates

MIX ID Initial Setting Final SettingTime Time(mins) (mins)

CGB Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete 216 241

OGB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash 241 272

OGFB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash 261 392

Mix Description

203

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450


Mix

Initi

al S

ettin

g T

ime

(min

s)

Figure 4.63: Comparison of Initial Setting Times for Bridge Deck Concrete


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450


Fina

l Set

ting

Tim

e (m

ins)

Figure 4.64: Comparison of Final Setting Times for Bridge Deck Concrete

with Granite Aggregates The addition of fly ash increased the initial and final setting times for bridge deck

concrete with granite aggregates. The ambient temperature and humidity were noted for

all the mixes.

204

4.4.2.3 Alkali Aggregate Reactivity:




14 days for all the concretes. The results are given in Tables FG3, FG6 and FG9

(Appendix F). Table FG3 gives the mean percent expansion for the control concrete,

Table FG6 gives mean percent expansion for the optimum concrete without fly ash and

Table FG9 gives mean percent expansion for the optimum concrete with fly ash. The

maximum expansion at the end of 14 days was observed for control concrete, and the

minimum was observed for the optimum concrete with fly ash.

The control concrete had a percentage expansion of 0.17613%, the optimum

concrete without fly ash had an expansion of 0.13450%, and optimum concrete with fly

ash had a mean expansion of 0.04625%, at the end of 14 days. The optimum concrete

with fly ash had lesser mean expansion when compared to optimum concrete without fly

ash and control concrete. The optimum concrete mixes performed better than the control

concrete at all ages. The optimum concrete with fly ash had better resistance to the alkali

solution, when compared to the control concrete and optimum concrete without fly ash.

The mean expansions of the control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and

optimum concrete with fly ash, at all ages are given in Table 4.10.

Table 4.10: Summary of Mean Percent Expansion of Alkali Aggregate Specimens

for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates

Mix ID3 Days 7 Days 11 Days 14 Days

CGB Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete 0.01875 0.04725 0.13625 0.17613

OGB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash 0.01575 0.03775 0.10288 0.1345

OGFB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash 0.01100 0.03125 0.04013 0.04625

Mix Description Percent Expansion After


the mean percentage expansions of optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum

concrete with fly ash, when compared to the control concrete at the end of 14 days. The

205

addition of fly ash had reduced the mean percentage expansion, and increased the

resistance of concrete to alkali attack. The results are shown in Figure 4.65.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Age(Days)

Mea

n E

xpan

sion

(%)

CGB OGB OGFB

Inno

cous

Del

eter

ious

Inno

cous

&D

elet

erio

us

Figure 4.65: Comparison of Alkali Aggregate Reactivity for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates

4.4.2.4 Freeze Thaw Resistance:


concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are given in Tables IG5 and

IG6 (Appendix I). The corresponding graph is shown in Figure 4.66. The pulse velocity

after 300 cycles of freezing and thawing for the control concrete was 4410 m/s (14469





for all the three mixes are given in Table IG11 (Appendix I). The control concrete

exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited a reduction of pulse velocity from 100% at 0

cycles to 94.91% at 300 cycles. The optimum concrete without fly ash exposed to freeze

thaw cycles exhibited a reduction of pulse velocity from 100% at 0 cycles to 95.15% at

300 cycles. The optimum concrete with fly ash exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited

206


velocities for the specimens subjected to standard curing were also observed. The pulse










curing were measured and are given in Table IG12 (Appendix I). The corresponding





14000

14500

15000

15500

16000

16500

17000

17500

18000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330

Freeze thaw cycles

Puls

e ve

loci

ty(f

t/sec

)

OGB concrete subjected to freeze thaw

OGFB concrete subjected to freeze thaw

CGB concrete subjected to freeze thaw

CGB concrete subjected to standard curing

OGB concrete subjected to standard curing

OGFB concrete subjected to standard curing

Figure 4.66: Change in Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Granite Aggregate subjected To Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing

207

0.000000

0.005000

0.010000

0.015000

0.020000

0.025000

0.030000

0.035000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350Freeze Thaw Cycles

Mea

n ex

pans

ion

(%)

CGB concrete subjected to Freeze Thaw CyclesOGB concrete subjected to Freeze Thaw CyclesOGFB concrete subjected to Freeze Thaw CyclesOGFB concrete subjected to Standard CuringOGB concrete subjected Standard CuringCGB concrete subjected to Standard Curing

Figure 4.67: Comparison of Mean Expansion for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens

with Granite Aggregate Subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing




in Table IG15 (Appendix I). The control concrete exposed to freeze thaw cycles exhibited












control and optimum mixes had durability in the range of 90-91 indicating very good


208




0.1% expansion.



absorption coefficient for the three mixes is shown in Table 4.11. The saturated surface

dry absorption coefficient was calculated for all the mixes after the completion of 300

cycles of freezing and thawing. The absorption coefficients for control concrete, optimum





Table 4.11: Saturated Surface Dry Absorption Coefficient for Bridge Deck Concrete

With Granite Aggregate

Mix Specimen No of cycles Age at Testing Absorption ID Curing Coefficient

(Days) by weight(%)

CGB Freeze Thaw 300 64 2.32

Standard 64 2.01

OGB Freeze Thaw 300 64 1.97

Standard 64 1.82

OGFB Freeze Thaw 300 64 1.65

Standard 64 1.58

* Standard Curing - Specimens placed in the Moist Curing room with 100% Humidity* Freeze Thaw - Specimens subjected to Freeze Thaw Cycles

4.4.3 Mix used for Drying Shrinkage and Deicer Scaling Resistance:


Mix 3 was used for the study of drying shrinkage and deicer scaling resistance of

concrete. Three mixes were made, control concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash

and optimum concrete with fly ash. The slumps were 58.4 mm (2.3 in.) for control

209

concrete, 25.4 mm (1.0 in.) for optimum concrete without fly ash and 33.0 mm (1.3 in.)

for optimum concrete with fly ash. There was a replacement of 20% by weight of cement

with 25% by weight of fly ash for the optimum concrete with fly ash mix. A medium

range water reducer was used for the optimum concrete with fly ash mixes. The

corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure AG52 (Appendix A).


was 5.4%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 5.2%. The optimum with fly ash

had least air content compared to the other two mixes. The corresponding bar chart is

shown in Figure AG55 (Appendix A).




(Appendix A).


mixing of concrete.





7% and 14% more than that of the control concrete

4.4.3.2 Drying Shrinkage Deformations:

The shrinkage deformations of the concrete specimens for control concrete and

the optimum concrete mixes were evaluated. Three specimens of size 286 mm x 75 mm x

75 mm (11.25 in x 3 in x 3 in) per mix were used to evaluate the shrinkage deformations.

The measured shrinkage deformations and the duration over which they have been taken

are given in Table GG3. The time vs. drying shrinkage deformations for the three mixes

are shown in Figure 4.68.



fly ash had 293 x 10-6. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure 4.69. The

optimum concrete with fly ash had the least shrinkage strain of all the three mixes.

210

There were reductions of 15% and 27% in the shrinkage deformations for

optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash respectively when

compared to that of the control concrete, at the end of 60 days. The use of well-graded

aggregate led to the reduction in cement content and hence there was a reduction in the

drying shrinkage of concrete.

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 30 60 9

Time in Da

0

ys

Shri

nkag

e D

efor

mat

ion,

10-6

in/in

CGB OGB OGFB

Figure 4.68: Comparison of Drying Shrinkage Deformation for Bridge Deck Concrete


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450


Mix

Shri

nkag

e D

efor

mat

ions

, 10-6

in./i

n.

Figure 4.69: Comparison of Drying Shrinkage Deformations at the end of 60 Days

for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates

211

4.4.3.3 Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals:










Table 4.12: Comparison of Scaling Resistance for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Granite Aggregate Mix ID ASTM Classification

Specimen 1

CGB 1 Very Light Scaling

OGB 0 No Scaling

OGFB 0 No Scaling

ASTM RatingSpecimen 2

1

0

0

The standard ASTM classification chart is shown in Figure 4.14. The optimum

concrete with fly ash and optimum concrete without fly ash had performed better than the

control concrete. There was no scaling observed for the optimum concretes with and

without fly ash. The control concrete had very light scaling at the end of 50 cycles of

freezing and thawing in the presence of Calcium Chloride solution.





(calcium chloride solution).

212

Figure 4.70: Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete – after 50 Cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals

Figure 4.71: Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash – after 50 Cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals

213

Figure 4.72: Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash – after 50 Cycles of Freezing and Thawing in the presence of Deicing Chemicals

4.4.4 Mix used for Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete:


Mix 4 was used for the study of creep of concrete. Three mixes were made, control

concrete, optimum concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash. The

slumps were 76.2 mm (3.0 in.) for control concrete, 88.9 mm (3.5 in.) for optimum

concrete without fly ash and 50.8 mm (2.0 in.) for optimum concrete with fly ash. There

was a replacement of 20% by weight of cement with 25% by weight of fly ash for the

optimum concrete with fly ash mix. A medium range water reducer was used for the

optimum concrete with fly ash mixes. The corresponding bar chart is shown in Figure

AG70 (Appendix A).


was 6.6%, and for the optimum mix with fly ash was 6.8%. The optimum concrete with

fly ash had the highest air content compared to the other two mixes. The corresponding

bar chart is shown in Figure BAG73 (Appendix A).

214




(Appendix A).


mixing of concrete.






4.4.4.2 Creep and Shrinkage




cylinders. The creep data are given in Tables HG3, HG6 and HG9 (Appendix H).



were 16%, 15% and 14% respectively for compressive strengths of 34.74 MPa (5001

psi), 36.58 MPa (5440 psi) and 38.23 MPa (5753 psi). The total unit creep strains for


were 480 x 10-6 in/in, 387 x 10-6 in/in and 358 x 10-6 in/in respectively at the end of 60

days. The control concrete had the highest total unit creep strain of 480 x 10-6 in. /in. at

an age of 60 days. The total unit strains and unit shrinkage strains for all the three mixes

are shown in Figures HG3, HG6 and HG9 (Appendix H) and Figure 4.73. The unit

specific creep for all the three mixes is shown in Figure 4.74. The creep rate for all the

three mixes is shown in Figure 4.75.




215



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9

Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit S

trai

n,(1

0-6 in

/in)

0

OGFB Total Unit StrainOGFB Unit Shrinkage StrainOGB Total Unit StrainOGB Unit Shrinkage StrainCGB Total Unit StrainCGB Unit Shrinkage Strain

Figure 4.73: Comparison of Total Unit Strains and Unit Shrinkage Strains for

Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Time in Days

Uni

t Spe

cific

Cre

ep, 1

0-6 in

/in/p

si

70

CGB (5001 psi) Stress-StrengthRatio = 16.16%

OGB(5440 psi) Stress-StrengthRatio = 14.85%

OGFB(5753 psi) Stress StrengthRatio = 14.05%

Figure 4.74: Comparison of Unit Specific Creep for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Granite Aggregates

216

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

0 1 10Time in Days

Cre

ep R

ate,

10-

6

100

CGB

OGB

OGFB

Figure 4.75: Creep Rate for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates

4.4.4.3 Creep Recovery




concrete without fly ash and optimum concrete with fly ash are given in Tables HG12,

HG15 and HG18 (Appendix H) respectively. The elastic recovery and creep recovery for

all the three mixes are shown in Figures HG12, HG15 and HG18 (Appendix H). The

creep strain and creep recovery strain for the three mixes is shown in Figure 4.76.








217

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Time in Days

Uni

t Cre

ep S

trai

n, 1

0-6 in

/in

CGBOGBOGFB

Age at Unloading = 60 Days

Figure 4.76: Comparison of Unit Creep Strain and Unit Elastic Strain and Creep Recovery on Unloading for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate






4.4.4.4 Plastic Shrinkage Tests of all the Materials Tests were conducted to determine the plastic shrinkage cracking potential of

concrete mixes with quartzite aggregate. All the three mixes did not crack. The laboratory

temperature was between 70 to 75°F and the humidity varied between 35 to 45 %. The

specified wind velocity was 22 km/hr. Since the cement content was not excessive, there

was no plastic shrinkage cracking in all three concretes. Therefore it is not possible to

compare the plastic shrinkage potential of the control concrete and concrete with

optimized aggregate gradation. When the temperature is very high and the wind velocity

is much higher than 22 km/hr, then there may be plastic shrinkage cracking.

218

The “Plastic Shrinkage Crack Potential” test was also conducted for all three

concretes made with limestone and granite aggregates. As happened in the case of

quartzite aggregate concrete there were no plastic shrinkage cracks in all three of the

concretes made with limestone aggregates. The three concretes tested were control

concrete, concrete with optimized aggregate gradation and 10 percent reduced cement,

and concrete with optimized aggregate gradation; reduced cement and 20 percent of the

cement by weight replaced with fly ash by 25 percent by weight of the cement.

The conclusion drawn from the above-referred results is that there is no

possibility of plastic shrinkage cracking contributing to the total cracking of the bridge

deck. The primary cause of bridge deck cracking is due to the drying shrinkage. The

photographs of test slabs made with quartzite aggregate, taken after 24 hours of casting

are given in Appendix J.

4.5 Temperature monitoring in Concrete using Thermochron I-Button

Mixes:

A total of six series of mixes were done for this investigation. In these six series

of mixes four were with limestone aggregate, one series with granite aggregate and one

with quartzite aggregate and all the details were tabulated in Table 4.13. In each series

three mixes i.e. control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly ash as

replacement for cement were done. In control mix 25 mm (1inch) aggregate was used as

the only coarse aggregate where as in the optimum mixes a combination of 37.5 mm (1.5

inch) and 19 mm (¾ inch) aggregates were used in optimized proportion.

In the first two series of mixes done with limestone aggregate the optimum mixes

were made with 15% reduction in cement content. In another two series of mixes done

with limestone aggregate the optimum mixes were made with 10% reduction in cement

content. In the last 2 series of mixes done with granite and quartzite aggregate

respectively, the optimum mixes were made with 10% reduction in cement content.

All the optimum mixes with fly ash had 20% by weight of cement replaced with

25% by weight of fly ash; this replacement is an addition to the 10% cement reduction.

219

Table 4.13. Mix Designations for all the Mixes

S.No. Mix Designation Description1 1CLB Control Limestone Bridge deck concrete mix 12 1OLB Optimum Limestone Bridge deck concrete mix 1 (15% Cement reduction)3 1OLFB Optimum Limestone Bridge deck concrete with fly ash mix 14 2CLB Control Limestone Bridge deck concrete mix 25 2OLB Optimum Limestone Bridge deck concrete mix 2 (15% Cement reduction)6 2OLFB Optimum Limestone Bridge deck concrete with fly ash mix 27 3CLB Control Limestone Bridge deck concrete mix 38 3OLB Optimum Limestone Bridge deck concrete mix 3 (10% Cement reduction)9 3OLFB Optimum Limestone Bridge deck concrete with fly ash mix 3

10 4CLB Control Limestone Bridge deck concrete mix 411 4OLB Optimum Limestone Bridge deck concrete mix 4 (10% Cement reduction)12 4OLFB Optimum Limestone Bridge deck concrete with fly ash mix 413 1CGB Control Granite Bridge deck concrete mix 114 1OGB Optimum Granite Bridge deck concrete mix 1 (10% Cement reduction)15 1OGFB Optimum Granite Bridge deck concrete with fly ash mix 116 1CQB Control Quartzite Bridge deck concrete mix 117 1OQB Optimum Quartzite Bridge deck concrete mix 1 (10% Cement reduction)18 1OQFB Optimum Quartzite Bridge deck concrete with fly ash mix 1

Correlation of Concrete Temperature and Cement Content:

The increase in temperature over the initial temperature in all the mixes has been

shown in the following Table 4.14.

Table 4.14. Change (increase) in temperature observed for all the mixes

Mix Designation Initial Temperature (0F) Peak Temperature (0F) Increase in Temperature (0F)1CLB 67.1 79.0 11.91OLB 66.2 76.1 9.9

1OLFB 60.8 77.9 17.12CLB 65.3 78.8 13.52OLB 65.3 73.4 8.1

2OLFB 67.1 70.7 3.63CLB 73.4 86.0 12.63OLB 73.4 82.4 9.0

3OLFB 71.6 82.4 10.84CLB 68.9 80.6 11.74OLB 69.2 80.6 11.4

4OLFB 70.7 81.5 10.81CGB 65.3 78.8 13.51OGB 67.1 79.7 12.6

1OGFB 65.3 76.1 10.81CQB 73.4 94.1 20.71OQB 73.4 93.2 19.8

1OQFB 74.3 93.2 18.9 Note: Initial temperature of concrete was recorded immediately after the concrete was

placed in the cylinder i.e. within five minutes after the concrete was discharged from the mixer.

220

I-button was programmed such that initial reading was recorded immediately after

placing in the concrete. This was within five minutes after discharging the concrete from

mixer. After casting, the cylinder was kept in lab for 24 hrs, and then the specimen was

demolded and kept for curing in the moisture room with 100% humidity. The cylinder

was tested at the age of 7 days for compressive strength.

Compressive strength for all the mixes at the age of seven days is shown in the

following Table 4.15.

Table 4.15. Compressive Strength of all the mixes at the age of 7 days

Mix Designation Age (Days) Diameter (in.) Length (in.)Unit weight (lb/ft3) Comp. strength (psi)1CLB 7 4.046 8.184 141 42081OLB 7 4.013 8.197 146 3981

1OLFB 7 3.946 8.335 151 42852CLB 7 4.022 8.050 142 40542OLB 7 4.013 8.122 143 3753

2OLFB 7 4.025 8.069 142 34053CLB 7 4.085 8.134 141 40263OLB 7 4.017 7.973 148 4020

3OLFB 7 4.034 8.077 148 43094CLB 7 4.045 8.012 146 41964OLB 7 4.058 8.127 146 4203

4OLFB 7 4.075 8.234 147 44861CGB 7 4.049 8.180 142 39841OGB 7 4.028 8.172 143 4328

1OGFB 7 4.047 8.039 143 46281CQB 7 4.012 8.070 147 38211OQB 7 4.006 8.098 149 4385

1OQFB 7 4.050 8.105 149 5480

Series 1 (1CLB, 1OLB & 1OLFB)

The optimum mix without fly ash made with limestone aggregates (1OLB- with

15% reduction in cement) showed a 9.90F increase in temperature. Where as the standard

DOT control mix (1CLB – without reduction in cement) showed 11.90F increase in

221

temperature. This shows that the optimum mix (1OLB), which had less cement, had less

increase in temperature due to less heat of hydration.

The optimum mix with fly ash (1OLFB) showed 17.10F increase in temperature.

The reason for the greater increase in temperature in spite of higher percentage reduction

in cement and the use of fly ash may be due to the addition of high range water reducer

(superplasticizer). The high range water reducer had increased the rate of hydration,

which in turn increased the temperature of concrete due to the increased heat of hydration

generated.

The compressive strengths at the age of 7 days of the control (1CLB), optimum

without fly ash (1OLB), and optimum with fly ash (1OLFB) mixes were 4208 psi, 3981

psi and 4285 psi respectively. Reduction in the strength of the optimum without fly ash

mix may be due to the less cement content (15%) in the mix. This less cement content

may not be enough to bind all the aggregates, which in turn reduced the compressive

strength. Whereas in the case of optimum mix with fly ash, (OLFB), the increase in

strength is marginal because of the addition of fly ash.

It was found that the reduction in the cement was proportional to reduction in the

increase of temperature due to the hydration process.





temperature. This shows that the optimum mix (2OLB) which had less cement had less



The reason for the lesser increase in temperature in 2OLFB may be due to higher

percentage reduction in cement and the use of fly ash. This reduction in cement content

and use of fly ash might have reduced the heat of hydration, which in turn reduced the

temperature of concrete. Superplasticizer was not used in this mix.

222



psi and 3405 psi respectively. Reduction in the strength of the optimum without fly ash

mix may be due to the less cement content (15%) in the mix. Whereas in the case of

optimum mix with fly ash, (OLFB), the decrease in strength is because of a very high

reduction in cement content in this mix (20% by weight of cement replaced with 25% by

weight of fly ash; this replacement is an addition to the 15% cement reduction). It was

found later from trial mixes that by using well-graded aggregates the cement content

could be reduced only to a maximum of 10% without compromising the strength and

workability of concrete.





temperature. This shows that the optimum mix (3OLB) which had less cement had less





and use of fly ash might have reduced the heat of hydration which in turn reduced the

temperature of concrete.



psi and 4309 psi respectively. In spite of 10% reduction in cement content in optimum

mix without fly ash it had almost equal compressive strength of the control mix. This

may be due to the use of well graded aggregates. In the case of optimum mix with fly ash,

the increase in strength may be due to the addition of fly ash.

223



10% reduction in cement) showed a 11.40F increase in temperature. Where as the

standard DOT control mix (4CLB – without reduction in cement) showed 11.70F increase

in temperature. This shows that the optimum mix (4OLB), which had less cement, had

less increase in temperature due to less heat of hydration.





temperature of concrete. This shows that the cement content is directly proportional to

concrete temperature. It is evident that there is a relationship between the quantity of

cement in the mix and the increase in temperature due to the hydration process. The

higher the cement content in the mix, the higher is the increase in temperature due to the

hydration.




mix without fly ash it had almost equal compressive strength of the control mix. The

reason may be the use of well-graded aggregates. In the case of optimum mix with fly ash

the increase in strength was due to the addition of fly ash.

Series 5 (1CGB, 1OGB & 1OGFB)

The optimum mix without fly ash made with granite aggregates (1OGB- with

10% reduction in cement) showed a 12.60F increase in temperature. Whereas the standard

DOT control mix (1CGB – without reduction in cement) showed 13.50F increase in

temperature. This shows that the optimum mix (1OGB), which had less cement, had less


The optimum mix with fly ash (1OGFB) showed 10.80F increase in temperature.

The reason for the lesser increase in temperature in 1OGFB may be due to higher

224


and use of fly ash might have reduced the heat of hydration which in turn reduced the

temperature of concrete. With granite aggregate it was also seen that the increase in

concrete temperature is proportional to the increase in cement content.

The compressive strengths at the age of 7 days of the control (1CGB), optimum

without fly ash (1OGB), and optimum with fly ash (1OGFB) mixes were 3984psi, 4328


mix without fly ash it had more compressive strength than control mix. This may be due

to the use of well-graded aggregates. Whereas in optimum mix with fly ash increase in

strength is due to use of well graded aggregates and fly ash.

Series 6 (1CQB, 1OQB & 1OQFB)

The optimum mix without fly ash made with quartzite aggregates (1OQB- with

10% reduction in cement) showed a 19.80F increase in temperature. Whereas the standard

DOT control mix (1CQB – without reduction in cement) showed 20.70F increase in

temperature. This shows that the optimum mix (1OQB), which had less cement, had less


The optimum mix with fly ash (1OQFB) showed 18.90F increase in temperature.

The reason for the lesser increase in temperature in 1OQFB may be due to higher



temperature of concrete. Even in the case of quartzite aggregate concrete it was seen that

increase in concrete temperature is proportional to the increase in cement content.

The compressive strengths at the age of 7 days of the control (1CQB), optimum

without fly ash (1OQB), and optimum with fly ash (1OQFB) mixes were 3821psi, 4385


mix without fly ash it had more compressive strength than control mix. This may be due

to the use of well-graded aggregates. Where as in optimum mix with fly ash increase in

strength is due to use of well-graded aggregates and fly ash.

In all the mixes temperature increased in the first 8-13 hours rapidly and after that

concrete had a steady temperature for the 7 days in the curing moist room.

225

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

3/9/2003 0:00 3/10/2003 0:00 3/11/2003 0:00 3/12/2003 0:00 3/13/2003 0:00 3/14/2003 0:00 3/15/2003 0:00 3/16/2003 0:00 3/17/2003 0:00

Time

Tem

pera

ture

(0 F)

Figure 4.77: Typical Variation of concrete (1OLFB) temperature over a period

of 7 days

A typical temperature variation graph for the concrete over a period of 7 days

recorded by I-Button is shown in above Figure 4.77.

The graphs for the temperature variation in all the mixes, monitored by I button

are shown in Figures L1 to L18 in Appendix L.

Correlation of Concrete Temperature and Initial and Final Setting Times

The initial and final setting time test was done for one series of limestone and one

series of granite mixes in order to study the relation between the temperature raise and

the setting time.

In the series of mixes in limestone, initial setting time for control, optimum

without fly ash and optimum with fly ash were 217 min, 260 min and 366 min

respectively. The final setting times were 273 min, 317 min and 391 min for control,

optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly ash respectively. The corresponding

increase in temperature observed for the three mixes were 11.7 0 0 0F, 11.4 F and 10.8 F

respectively. Higher setting times in case of optimum mixes when compared to control

226

may be due to less cement content. Due to less cement content in optimum mixes

temperature increase was less and resulted in higher setting time.

In granite, control has a lesser initial as well as final setting time than optimum

mixes. The initial setting time for control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly

ash were 216 min, 241 min, and 361 min respectively. The final setting times were 241

min, 272 min, and 392 min for 1CGB, 1OGB and 1OGFB respectively. The

corresponding increase in temperature observed for the three mixes were 13.5 0 0F, 12.6 F

and 10.8 0F respectively. The increase in the initial and final setting time in the optimum

mixes may be due to less cement content. Because of less cement content in optimum

mixes temperature increase was less and may have resulted in higher setting times.

In quartzite, control has a lesser initial as well as final setting time than optimum

mixes. The initial setting time for control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly

ash were 212 min, 250 min, and 295 min respectively. The final setting times were 255

min, 292 min, and 325 min respectively. The corresponding increase in temperature

observed for the three mixes were 20.7 0 0F, 19.8 F and 18.9 0F respectively. The increase

in the initial and final setting time in the optimum mixes may be due to the less cement

content. As cement produces the heat of hydration, because of less cement content in

optimum mixes temperature increase was less and may have resulted in higher setting

time.

I-button in Other Projects:

Knowing that I-button is useful in finding the temperature variation in the

concrete it was used in the other projects (Bacterial concrete, NSF sponsored project).

Mortar and concrete mixes with bacteria suspended in water, phosphate buffer and urea

cacl2 were monitored for temperature using I-button. Results found using I-button were

very useful in understanding the behavior of the concrete with bacteria suspended in

different mediums in the durability and as well plastic shrinkage studies.

227

CHAPTER 5.0

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions

• A comprehensive literature review relevant to optimized aggregate gradation and

its effect on strength and durability aspects of concrete was done, which helped in

planning and conducting this research project.

• Four methods pertaining to obtaining optimized aggregate gradation: 0.45 power

chart, 8-18 method, USAF constructability chart method and Shilstone method,

were studied and used for this investigation. It was found that all the four methods

complement each other to a great extent.

• Historically, the 0.45 power chart was used to develop uniform gradations for

asphalt mix designs. For the first time anywhere in the world a detailed

investigation was carried out to determine the validity of the 0.45 power chart and

its applicability to concrete mix designs.

o It was found that the mix incorporating the 0.45 power chart gradations gave the

highest strength and better workability when compared to other power charts and

the control concrete. The 0.45 power chart requires more minus 9.5 mm (3/8 in.),

plus 2.36 mm (No. 8) sieve particles (intermediate particles) that fill the major

voids and aid in mix mobility. Because of the intermediate particles, the concrete

mix incorporating the 0.45 power chart gradations gave the best workable mix

with the maximum strength. Thus the 0.45 power curve can be adopted with

confidence to obtain the densest configuration of aggregates and it is also

universally applicable for all aggregates. The increase in strength obtained by

using well-graded aggregates can be used to optimize the cement content for

improving the durability aspects of concrete.

• Due to its versatility and validity the 0.45 power chart was used to obtain the

target gradation. Therefore the aim was to obtain an optimum blend whose


• Eventhough a single aggregate and sand can be produced by the aggregate

manufacturers to meet the target gradation, we did not use this approach, as it

would involve an increase in the cost. For practical considerations, in order to

228

make it easier for aggregate suppliers, only two standard sizes (1.5” and ¾”

maximum sizes) of coarse aggregates were selected for blending with medium

sand (FM = 2.84) to satisfy the target gradation. Therefore it is realized that an

exact fitting with the 0.45 power chart would not be always possible to achieve.

Still an almost close fit with the 0.45 power chart’s target gradation was obtained

for both quartzite and limestone aggregates. The combined optimized aggregate

gradation that satisfied the 0.45 power chart was then compared with the

Shilstone gradations, USAF constructability chart and the 8-18 method for

compatibility. It was found that the obtained gradation was compatible with all

the 4 methods.

• Since the supplied coarse granite aggregates were crushed aggregates and there

was a greater variation in the shape and texture of the aggregates, it was more

difficult to get the exact fit with the 0.45 power chart, and compatible with

Shilstone method, USAF and 8-18 methods.

• By trial and error the following proportions were chosen for each aggregate,

based on the aggregates supplied, that when blended gave the optimized aggregate

gradation.




• After optimizing the aggregate gradation the cement content in the concrete mix

was optimized (to reduce shrinkage cracks in concrete) without compromising the

strength, workability requirements. Different percentage reductions of cement

content (8.4%, 10% and 15%) were tried extensively, and tested for strength and

workability characteristics. It was found that concrete mixes made with 10%

reduction in cement content (compared to the corresponding control concrete)

gave the optimum results. Even though there was a 10% reduction in cement

content, a corresponding strength reduction was not observed because of the use

of optimized aggregate gradation.

• The influence of different percentages of cement content (8.4% & 10% for

quartzite aggregate concretes, 10 & 15% for limestone aggregate concretes and

229

10% for granite aggregate) on the durability characteristics of concretes were also

determined and are also reported. The comparison of the durability test results

between the two sets of mixes (8.4 % and 10%) with different percentages of

cement reduction for concretes made with quartzite aggregate were made. It was

found that the strength and durability test results of both the sets of mixes showed

similar trends. Similarity of durability test results was not observed for concretes

made with limestone aggregates with different percentages reduction in cement

content (10% & 15%).

• It was found from trial mixes that by using well-graded aggregates the cement

content could be reduced to a maximum of 10% without compromising the

strength and workability of concrete.

• The optimized aggregate concrete with 10% cement reduction for all the three

aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite) with and without fly ash were

subjected to the following tests.

Workability

All the three mixes, control, optimum without fly ash and optimum with fly ash

were easily workable, even though the optimum mixes had a reduction of 10.0% in the

cement content with all three aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite).

The finishability for control and optimum mixes without fly ash was good. The

finishability of the optimum mixes with fly ash was very good because of more paste

content. Appropriate amounts of medium range waster reducer and air entraining agent

were added to meet the SDDOT requirements of slump and the air content.

Compressive Strength

• The 28-day compressive strengths for optimum quartzite concrete without fly

ash and optimum quartzite concrete with fly ash were 2.5% and 24% more than

that of the control concrete.

• The 28-day compressive strengths for optimum limestone concrete without fly

ash and optimum limestone concrete with fly ash were 4% and 11% more than

that of the control concrete.

230

• The 28-day compressive strengths for optimum granite concrete without fly ash

and optimum granite concrete with fly ash were 9% and 15% more than that of


• It was found that same trend was observed for all the ages.

Modulus of Rupture (Flexural Strength)

• The 28-day flexural strength for optimum quartzite concrete without fly ash and

optimum quartzite concrete with fly ash were 2.4% and 17.3% respectively

more than that for the control concrete.

• The 28-day flexural strength for optimum limestone concrete without fly ash

and optimum limestone concrete with fly ash were 5% and 14% respectively

more than that for the control concrete.

• The 28-day flexural strength for optimum granite concrete without fly ash and

optimum granite concrete with fly ash were 4% and 13% respectively more than

that for the control concrete.

Sulfate Resistance of Concrete

• It was found that 18% and 29% reductions in the mean expansions of optimum

quartzite concrete without fly ash and optimum quartzite concrete with fly ash

respectively were observed, when compared to that of the control concrete at the

end of 15 weeks.


limestone concrete without fly ash and optimum limestone concrete with fly ash


end of 15 weeks.


granite concrete without fly ash and optimum granite concrete with fly ash


end of 15 weeks.

231

Drying Shrinkage Deformations

• A reduction of 15% and 26% in shrinkage deformations of optimum quartzite

concrete without and with fly ash respectively was observed, when compared to

control quartzite concrete, at the end of 90 days.

• A reduction of 16% and 25% in shrinkage deformations of optimum limestone



• A reduction of 15% and 27% in shrinkage deformations of optimum granite



Alkali Aggregate Reactivity

• It can be observed from the results that there were reductions of 10% and 85%

in the mean percentage expansions of optimum quartzite concrete without fly

ash and optimum quartzite concrete with fly ash, when compared to the control

concrete at the end of 14 days.

• It can be observed that there were reductions of 14% and 49% in the mean

percentage expansions of optimum limestone concrete without fly ash and

optimum limestone concrete with fly ash, when compared to the control


• It can be observed from the results that there were reductions of 24% and 74%

in the mean percentage expansions of optimum granite concrete without fly ash

and optimum granite concrete with fly ash, when compared to the control


Creep and Shrinkage

• At the end of 60 days of sustained loading, the total unit creep strains measured

for the optimum quartzite concrete without fly ash and optimum quartzite

concrete with fly ash were 19% and 26% lesser than the control concrete.

• The unit creep recovery for 10 days upon unloading were 17%, 20% and 23%

respectively for control quartzite concrete, optimum quartzite concrete without

232

fly ash and optimum quartzite concrete with fly ash of their respective total unit

creep strain during the period of 60 days.


for the optimum limestone concrete without fly ash and optimum limestone

concrete with fly ash were 19% and 23% lesser than the control concrete.


respectively for control limestone concrete, optimum limestone concrete

without fly ash and optimum limestone concrete with fly ash of their respective

total unit creep strain during the period of 60 days.


for the optimum granite concrete without fly ash and granite optimum concrete

with fly ash were 19% and 26% lesser than the control concrete.


respectively for control granite concrete, optimum granite concrete without fly

ash and optimum granite concrete with fly ash of their respective total unit creep

strain during the period of 60 days.

Setting Time

• Optimum quartzite concrete without fly ash had 19% and 15% increase in the

initial and final setting times respectively when compared to control concrete. In

case of optimum quartzite concrete with fly ash the increase was 35% and 29%

in initial and final setting times respectively when compared to control concrete.

• Control limestone concrete had lesser initial and final setting times when

compared to optimum concrete without and with fly ash. Optimum limestone

concrete with fly ash had an increase of 69% and 43% in initial and final setting

times respectively when compared to control concrete.

• Optimum granite concrete without fly ash had 12% and 13% increase in the

initial and final setting times respectively when compared to control concrete. In

case of optimum granite concrete with fly ash the increase was 21% and 62% in

initial and final setting times respectively when compared to control concrete.

233

Rapid Chloride Permeability Test

• Chloride permeability was rated high for both control and optimum quartzite

concrete without fly ash and moderate for the optimum quartzite concrete with

fly ash at 56 days. Permeability was rated high for both control and optimum

concrete without fly ash and low for optimum concrete with fly ash at 90 days.

• Chloride permeability was rated high for both control and optimum limestone



concrete without fly ash and moderate for optimum concrete with fly ash at 90

days.

• Chloride permeability was rated high for both control and optimum granite



concrete without fly ash and moderate for optimum concrete with fly ash at 90

days.

Scaling Resistance of Concrete to Deicing Chemicals

• All the control concretes (quartzite, limestone and granite) had very light

scaling at the end of 50 cycles, whereas all the optimum concretes (quartzite,

limestone and granite) without fly ash and with fly ash showed good resistance

to the deicer scaling, even when the cement content was reduced by 10 percent.

Freeze Thaw Resistance of Concrete

• After 300 cycles of freeze thaw all the optimum concretes (quartzite, limestone

and granite) without fly ash and with fly ash had higher durability factor and

less mean expansion than control concretes (quartzite, limestone and granite).

• In all the concretes (quartzite, limestone and granite) control, optimum mixes

without and with fly ash had durability factor in the range of 88 – 91 indicating

very good freeze thaw resistance (ASTM C 494 sets the minimum durability

factor at 80%).

234

Plastic Shrinkage Test

• Tests were conducted to determine the plastic shrinkage cracking potential of

concrete mixes (control, optimum without flyash and optimum with flyash) with

all aggregates. All the mixes did not crack. The laboratory temperature was

between 70 to 75°F and the humidity varied between 35 to 45 %. The specified

wind velocity was 22 km/hr (15 miles/hr). Since the cement content was not

excessive, there was no plastic shrinkage cracking in all three concretes.

Therefore it is not possible to compare the plastic shrinkage potential of the

control concrete and concrete with optimized aggregate gradation. When the

temperature is very high and the wind velocity is much higher than 22 km/hr

(15 miles/hr) as occurs sometimes in the field, then there may be plastic

shrinkage cracking. These conditions could not be simulated in the lab.

Temperature Monitoring

• The concrete temperatures of all the mixes were monitored using a new

instrument called I-button, which was provided by the SDDOT. It was found

that in the optimum mixes without fly ash the reduction in the cement was

proportional to reduction in the increase of temperature due to the hydration

process. The reason for the lesser increase in temperature in optimum mix with

fly ash may be due to higher percentage reduction in cement and the use of fly

ash. This reduction in cement content and use of fly ash might have reduced the

heat of hydration, which in turn reduced the temperature of concrete.

• There was a good correlation between the setting time and the temperature of

concrete. It was found that optimum mixes had higher setting times when

compared to control, due to less cement content. Because of less cement content

in optimum mixes, temperature increase was less and resulted in higher setting

times.

• I-button proved to be an effective tool for monitoring continuously the exact

temperature variation in the concrete.

235

5.2 Recommendations

1. It is recommended that 37.5 mm (1.5 in) maximum size aggregate with the

recommended target gradation, as determined by the 0.45 power chart, for the

combined coarse and fine aggregates with a tolerance of + 3 should be used for all

the aggregates ( quartzite, limestone and granite). The target gradation is given

below:

Target gradation with allowable tolerance

1.51

3/41/23/8

No. 4No. 8No. 16No. 30No. 50No. 100

118

39292116

1008374

5461

13-198-145-11

51-5736-4226-3218-24

97-10080-8671-7758-64

Sieve Size (in)

Target Gradation

Allowable Limits (+ or - 3 tolerance)

2 Because of the possible variation in the aggregate shape, size and the gradation

even from the same supplier, it is recommended that individual sieve analysis for

37.5 mm (1.5 in) and 19 mm (¾ in) and medium sand should be done. These

aggregates should be blended in suitable proportions by trial and error to obtain

the proposed target gradation. Compatibility of the obtained combined gradation

should be checked with Shilstone method, USAF constructability chart and 8-18

method. If necessary some field adjustments can be made to ensure compatibility

with Shilstone, USAF constructability chart and 8-18 method. It should be noted

that it may not be always possible with a particular aggregates to satisfy all the

four methods.

3 The best possible blend with the available coarse aggregate sizes 37.5 mm (1.5 in)

and 19 mm (¾ in) and medium sand that matched the target gradation was

obtained for all the three supplied aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite)

from the South Dakota Aggregate suppliers ( the sieve analysis of the supplied

236

aggregates are included in the report). The combined gradations thus obtained by

blending for all the three aggregates (quartzite, limestone and granite) are given

below:

Combined gradations for the aggregates (Quartzite, limestone and granite)

Quartzite Limestone Granite1.5 100 99 100 1001 83 83 88 99

3/4 74 74 75 911/2 61 66 58 783/8 54 52 48 60

No. 4 39 37 36 37No. 8 29 33 32 32

No. 16 21 26 25 25No. 30 16 14 16 16No. 50 11 4 8 7No. 100 8 1 2 2

Combined Gradation Sieve Size (in) Target Gradation

4. A method proposed in the investigation can be used to arrive at the percentages of

the three aggregates to be combined. For the three aggregates (quartzite,

limestone and granite) and medium sand obtained from the South Dakota

aggregate suppliers, the mixture proportions obtained in this investigation are

given below:

Recommended Mixture Proportions for the Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate

IngredientVolume

Proportions (ft3)

Volume Proportions


1.0" 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.003/4" 1108.00 pcy 6.75 1110.00 pcy 6.76


OQB - Optimuum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly ash)OQFB -

pcy -


Optimuum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly ash)


Proportions

0.42 0.47

OQB OQFB

0.360.42

pounds per cubic yard

237

Recommended Mixture Proportions for the Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

IngredientVolume

Proportions (ft3)

Volume Proportions


1.0" 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.003/4" 1043.00 pcy 6.24 1045.00 pcy 6.25


OLB - OLFB -

pcy -

OLB OLFB

0.360.42


Optimuum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly ash)Optimuum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly ash)pounds per cubic yard


Proportions

0.42 0.47

Recommended Mixture Proportions for the Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate

IngredientVolume

Proportions (ft3)

Volume Proportions


1.0" 0.00 pcy 0.00 0.00 pcy 0.003/4" 882.00 pcy 5.42 885.00 pcy 5.43


OGB - OGFB -

pcy -

OGB OGFB

0.360.42


Optimuum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete (Without Fly ash)Optimuum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete (With Fly ash)pounds per cubic yard


Proportions

0.42 0.47

Notes for all Tables

SI unit conversion Factors: 1pcy = 0.593 kg/m3, 1 ft3 = 0.028 m3, 1 in = 25.4 mm




238

5. Based on a very comprehensive and extensive laboratory investigation, it is

recommended that the optimum graded mixture proportions with class F fly ash

should be specified for bridge deck concrete. Compared to plain deck concrete,

the benefits of using fly ash deck concrete as demonstrated in this project, are

substantial reduction in the chloride ion penetrability (a “low” value as per ASTM

C 1202), reduced corrosion potential, higher modulus concrete, reduced plastic

shrinkage, reduced drying shrinkage, reduced early temperature rise due to the

hydration activity, less micro-cracking, higher durability, better workability and

good finishability. Additional benefits are reduced creep, better bond, higher

resistance to sulfate attack, less expansion due to alkali-aggregate reaction, less

deicer scaling and higher freeze thaw durability factor. It is recommended that

20% of the cement by weight should be replaced with 25% by weight of Class F

fly ash.

6. In cases where the water to cementitious ratios are very low (in the range of 0.28

to 0.32) and mineral admixture such as fly ash is used, high range water reducers

are recommended. In cases where w/c ratio is around 0.40, mid range water

reducers may be sufficient. Addition of large quantities of mid range water

reducers lowers the rate of strength gain.

7. When optimized aggregate concretes are used, it is recommended that the

following quality control tests should be conducted in the field using ASTM test

procedures for the fresh concrete: slump, unit weight, air content and the concrete

temperature. The ambient temperature, humidity and the wind velocity should be

recorded during the bridge deck concrete placement. The compressive strength

and static modulus tests should be conducted on the field samples collected and

cured according to the ASTM standard procedures at 28 days.

Appendix – A

Details of Tables and Figures of Sieve Analysis, Optimization, Aggregate Gradation, Trial Mixes and Fresh Concrete properties for

Optimization of mixture proportions

A-1

Table AQ1: Mixture Designations for Trial Mixes of Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregates.

Mix ID Description

CQB45 Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete (w/c ratio-0.45)OQB45 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash (w/c ratio-0.45)OQFB45 Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash (w/c ratio-0.45)

CQB45 A Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Cocrete ( Trial A - w/c ratio-0.45)OQB45 A Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash ( Trial A - w/c ratio-0.45)OQFB45 A Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash ( Trial A - w/c ratio-0.45)



CQB42 Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete (w/c ratio-0.42)OQB42 R Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash (w/c ratio-0.42)

(Reduced Cement)OQFB42 R Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash (w/c ratio-0.42)

(Reduced Cement)

Table AL2: Mixture Designation for Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

* Blend I = 30% of 1.5inch Aggregate, 35% of 3/4 inch Aggregate and 35% of Fine Aggregate * Blend II = 23% of 1.5inch Aggregate, 42% of 3/4 inch Aggregate and 35% of Fine Aggregate

Mix ID

Control Limestone Blend I Trial Mix with 15 % Cement Reduction (w/c ratio - 0.42) Optimum Limestone Blend I Trial Mix with 15 % Cement Reduction (w/c ratio - 0.42)

OLBT - IOLBT - I (CR)OLBT - IIOLBT - II (CR)

Optimum Limestone Fly Ash Blend I Trial Mix with 15 % Cement Reduction (w/c ratio - 0.55)

Description

CLB OLBOLFB

Optimum Limestone Blend I Trial Mix with 8.4 % Cement Reduction (w/c ratio - 0.42) Optimum Limestone Blend I Trial Mix with 15 % Cement Reduction (w/c ratio - 0.42) Optimum Limestone Blend II Trial Mix with 8.4 % Cement Reduction (w/c ratio - 0.42) Optimum Limestone Blend II Trial Mix with 15 % Cement Reduction (w/c ratio - 0.42)

A-2

Table AG3: Mixture Designation for Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Granite Aggregate

Mix ID Description

OGB T(1*) Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash(Air Entraining Agent added in full - w/c ratio-0.42)

OGFB T(1) Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash(Air Entraining Agent added in Steps - w/c ratio-0.50)

2OGFB T(1) Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash(Air Entraining Agent added in full - w/c ratio-0.50 )

OGB T(2**) Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash(Air Entraining Agent added in full - w/c ratio-0.42)

OGFB T(2) Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash(Air Entraining Agent added in full - w/c ratio-0.50)

CGB T(1) Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete(w/c ratio-0.42)

OGFB T(1)-2 Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash(w/c ratio-0.47)

OGFB T(2)-2 Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash(w/c ratio-0.47)

* Aggregate Blend of 35%(1.5"):30%(3/4"):35%(Fine Aggregate)** Aggregate Blend of 41%(1.5"):24%(3/4"):35%(Fine Aggregate)

Table AQ4: Mixture Designation for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate MIX ID Description

1-CQB Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete ( Mix 1)1-OQB Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash ( Mix 1)1-OQFB Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash. ( Mix 1)

2-CQB Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete ( Mix 2)2-OQB Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash. ( Mix 2)2-OQFB Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash. ( Mix 2)

3-CQB Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete ( Mix 3)3-OQB Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete with out Fly Ash ( Mix 3)3-OQFB Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck concrete with Fly Ash. ( Mix 3)

A-3

Table AL5: Mixture Designation for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

Mix ID Description

1 - CLB Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 1)1 - OLB Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash (Mix 1)1 - OLFB Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash (Mix 1)



Table AG6: Mixture Designation for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate

MIX ID Description

1- CGB Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 1)1- OGB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash (Mix 1)1- OGFB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash (Mix 1)

2- CGB Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete (Mix 2)2- OGB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash(Mix 2)2- OGFB Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash (Mix 2)



A-4

Table AQ7: Mixture Proportions for Trial Mixes of Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregates.

Fly Ash Cement Fine Air Water w/c w/(c+f)1.5" Max 1" Max 3/4" Max Aggregate Entraining

Size Size Size Agentpcy pcy pcy pcy pcy pcy *A pcy % %

CQB45 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 1.00 295 0.45 0.45OQB45 0 655 777 0 1060 989 1.00 295 0.45 0.45

OQFB45 197 491 777 0 1060 989 1.00 221 0.45 0.32

CQB45 A 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 1.25 295 0.45 0.45OQB45 A 0 655 777 0 1060 989 1.25 295 0.45 0.45

OQFB45 A 197 491 777 0 1060 989 3.00 221 0.45 0.32

CQB40 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 1.50 262 0.40 0.40OQB40 0 655 777 0 1060 989 1.50 262 0.40 0.40

OQFB40 197 491 777 0 1060 989 2.00 197 0.40 0.29

CQB43 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 1.50 282 0.43 0.43OQB43 0 655 777 0 1060 989 1.50 282 0.43 0.43

OQFB43 164 524 777 0 1060 989 2.00 164 0.43 0.33

CQB42 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 1.50 275 0.42 0.42 OQB42 R 0 600 777 0 1060 989 1.50 252 0.42 0.42

OQFB42 R 150 480 777 0 1060 989 2.50 202 0.42 0.32

*Apcyw/c

w/(c+f)1 oz

Pounds per cubic yardwater-cement ratiowater-cementitious ratio29.57 ml

Ounces per 100 lb of cement


Table AL8: Mixture Proportions for Trial Mixes of Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

Fly Ash Cement Fine Air Water w/c w/(c+f)

1.5" Max 1" Max 3/4" Max Aggregate EntrainingSize Size Size Agent

pcy pcy pcy pcy pcy pcy *A pcy % %

LB T - I 0 600 848 0 989 989 1.50 252 0.42 0.42LBT - I (CR) 0 556 848 0 989 989 1.50 234 0.42 0.42LBT - II 0 600 650 0 1187 989 1.50 252 0.42 0.42LBT - II (CR) 0 556 650 0 1187 989 1.50 234 0.42 0.42

0 655 0 1725 0 1100 3.10 275 0.42 0.42LB 0 556 848 0 989 989 7.27 234 0.42 0.42LFB 139 445 848 0 989 989 3.00 245 0.55 0.42

*A Ounces per 100 lb of cementpcy Pounds per cubic yardw/c water-cement ratio

w/(c+f) water-cementitious ratio1 oz


29.57 ml

O

OO

O

CLB

OO

A-5

Table AG9: Mixture Proportions for Trial Mixes of Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate

Fly Ash Cement Fine Air Water w/c w/(c+f)1.5" Max 1" Max 3/4" Max Aggregate Entraining

Size Size Size Agentpcy pcy pcy pcy pcy pcy *A pcy % %

OGB T(1) 0 590 989 0 848 989 3.00 248 0.42 0.42OGFB T(1) 148 472 989 0 848 989 4.00 236 0.50 0.382OGFB T(1) 148 472 989 0 848 989 4.00 236 0.50 0.38OGB T(2) 0 590 1159 0 678 989 3.00 248 0.42 0.42OGFB T(2) 148 472 1159 0 678 989 3.50 236 0.50 0.38

CGB T(1) 0 655 0 1725 0 1100 3.00 275 0.42 0.42OGFB T(1)-2 148 472 989 0 848 989 3.00 222 0.47 0.36OGFB T(2)-2 148 472 1159 0 678 989 3.80 222 0.47 0.36

*A Ounces per 100 lb of cementpcy Pounds per cubic yardw/c water-cement ratio

w/(c+f) water-cementitious ratio1 oz


29.57 ml Table AQ10: Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate

Ingredient CQB OQB OQFB

Cement (pcy) 655 590 471.6Fly Ash (pcy) 0 0 147.4

Coarse Aggregate (pcy) 1.5" 0 776.9 776.91.0" 1725 0 03/4" 0 1059.4 1059.4

Fine Aggregate (pcy) 1100 988.8 988.8Water (pcy) 275.1 247.6 221.7W/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.47

W/CM Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.36

A-6

Table AL11: Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone

Aggregate


1" 3/4"

Fine Aggregate (pcy)Water (pcy)W/C RatioW/CM Ratio


988.8221.70.470.36

147.4847.5

0.0988.8

0.42

988.8247.6

0.42

1100.0275.10.42 0.42

0.0847.5

0.0988.8

0.00.0

1725.00.0

655.0 589.5 471.6Cement (pcy)

Ingredient CLB OLB OLFB Table AG12: Mixture Proportions for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate


1" 3/4"

Fine Aggregate (pcy)W ater (pcy)W /C RatioW /CM Ratio


988.8221.80.470.36

147.5988.8

0.0847.5

0.42

988.8247.6

0.42

1100.0275.10.42 0.42

0.0988.8

0.0847.5

0.00.0

1725.00.0

655.0 590.0 472.0Cement (pcy)

Ingredient CGB OGB OGFB

A-7

Table AQ13: Fresh Concrete Properties for Trial Mixes with Quartzite Aggregate.

Mix ID Ambient Relative Slump Air Unit Weight ConcreteTemp Humidity Content Temp ( o F ) ( RH ) (in.) (%) ( lb/ft3 ) ( o F )

CQB45 75 45 4.1 4.0 148 75OQB45 75 45 2.8 4.0 146 75

OQFB45 75 45 0.5 2.6 152 74

CQB45A 75 40 3.6 5.8 145 73 OQB45A 75 40 3.3 6.0 144 73

OQFB45A 75 40 0.6 3.0 150 72

CQB40 75 50 2.1 3.8 149 72OQB40 75 50 2.3 4.2 148 75

OQFB40 75 50 0.2 2.6 151 74

CQB43 70 40 4.1 6.4 143 70OQB43 70 40 6.0 6.0 144 72

OQFB43 70 40 0.8 3.6 150 71

CQB42 70 45 2.7 5.2 146 71 OQB42 R 70 45 3.0 5.8 145 70

OQFB42 R 70 45 0.3 3.2 150 70

1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3

N. A - Not Applicable

SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa

Table AL14: Fresh Concrete Properties for Trial Mixes with Limestone Aggregate.

Ambient Relative Slump Air Content Unit Weight ConcreteMix ID Temp Humidity Temp

( 0 F ) ( RH ) (in.) (%) (lb/ft3) ( 0 F )

OLB T - I 70 30 3.5 5.6 148 62 OLBT - I (CR) 70 30 0.6 4.0 149 62

OLBT - II 70 30 0.5 3.4 150 62OLBT - II (CR) 70 30 1.4 4.8 149 62

CLB 70 35 3.0 5.8 148 58 OLB 70 35 2.9 5.2 148 58OLFB 70 35 4.0 6.8 145 60

1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3



A-8

Table AG15: Fresh Concrete Properties for Trial Mixes with Granite Aggregate.


( 0 F ) ( RH ) (in.) (%) (lb/ft3) ( 0 F )

OGB T(1) 65 38 1.5 5.2 148 60 OGFB T(1) 65 38 1.9 6.8 144 60

2OGFB T(1) 65 38 1.8 6.0 146 59OGB T(2) 65 38 1.5 6.6 145 60

OGFB T(2) 65 38 1.5 6.4 146 58

CGB T(1) 70 40 2.1 5.6 146 58 OGFB T(1)-2 70 40 1.0 5.0 147 60 OGFB T(2)-2 70 40 0.8 5.2 147 60

1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3



Table AQ16: Fresh Concrete Properties for Bridge Deck Concrete Mixes with Quartzite Aggregate

Mix ID Ambient Relative Slump Air Unit Weight ConcreteTemp Humidity Content Temp( oF ) (RH) ( in ) ( % ) (lb/ft3) ( oF )

1-CQB 80 45 3.25 6.6 144 641-OQB 80 45 3.5 6.6 143 681-OQFB 70 45 1.5 5.4 149 62

2-CQB 70 45 2.5 5.8 145 622-OQB 70 45 2.5 6.2 144 622-OQFB 70 45 3 5.8 146 62

3-CQB 75 40 3.5 6.4 146 703-OQB 75 40 3 6.2 146 703-OQFB 75 40 3.5 6.2 144 70

1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3



A-9

Table AL17: Fresh Concrete Properties for Bridge Deck Concrete Mixes with Limestone Aggregate

1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3



Mix ID Ambient Relative Slump Air Unit Weight ConcreteTemp Humidity Content Temp ( o F ) ( RH ) (in.) (%) ( lb/ft3 ) ( o F )

1 - CLB 70 30 1.5 5.4 148 621 - OLB 70 40 2.2 5.2 148 60

1- OLFB 70 30 3.2 5.6 148 62

2 - CLB 70 45 2.0 5.4 147 622 - OLB 70 45 2.2 5.4 149 60

2 - OLFB 70 45 2.0 5.6 148 60

3 - CLB 70 45 3.0 5.8 147 603 - OLB 70 45 2.7 6.0 148 60

3 - OLFB 70 45 3.0 6.8 148 60

Table AG18: Fresh Concrete Properties for Bridge Deck Concrete Mixes with

Granite Aggregates.


( 0 F ) ( RH ) (in.) (%) (lb/ft3) ( 0 F )

1 -CGB 65 40 2.8 6.2 144 60 1 -OGB 65 40 1.5 5.4 147 60

1 -OGFB 65 40 1.0 5.4 148 61

2 -CGB 70 45 1.5 5.2 148 60 2 -OGB 70 45 1.5 5.6 146 62

2 -OGFB 70 45 1.0 5.4 147 60

3 -CGB 75 45 2.3 5.6 145 62 3 -OGB 75 45 1.0 5.4 146 66

3 -OGFB 75 45 1.3 5.2 145 66

4 -CGB 80 45 3.0 6.4 144 66 4 -OGB 80 45 3.5 6.6 144 66

4 -OGFB 80 45 2.0 6.8 143 66

1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3



A-10

Table AQ19: Concrete Cylinder Compressive Strength (Quartzite Aggregate) for Trial Mixes

2 8 D a yM ix ID A ir C o n te n t S lu m p U n it W e ig h t C o m p . S t re n g th

% in ( lb /f t 3 ) p s i

C Q B 4 5 4 .0 4 .1 1 4 8 5 0 2 3O Q B 4 5 4 .0 2 .8 1 4 6 5 0 3 9

O Q F B 4 5 2 .6 0 .5 1 5 2 6 0 0 8

C Q B 4 5 A 5 .8 3 .6 1 4 5 4 6 2 8 O Q B 4 5 A 6 .0 3 .3 1 4 4 4 2 9 4

O Q F B 4 5 A 3 .0 0 .6 1 5 0 6 0 8 4

C Q B 4 0 3 .8 2 .1 1 4 9 5 6 0 5O Q B 4 0 4 .2 2 .3 1 4 8 5 6 4 9

O Q F B 4 0 2 .6 0 .2 1 5 1 6 1 5 4

C Q B 4 3 6 .4 4 .1 1 4 3 4 4 5 6O Q B 4 3 6 .0 6 .0 1 4 4 4 4 9 3

O Q F B 4 3 3 .6 0 .8 1 5 0 5 6 3 0

C Q B 4 2 5 .2 2 .7 1 4 6 4 5 8 0 O Q B 4 2 R 5 .8 3 .0 1 4 5 4 5 6 5

O Q F B 4 2 R 3 .2 0 .3 1 5 0 5 7 7 9

1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3



Table AL20: Concrete Cylinder Compressive Strength (Limestone Aggregate) for Trial Mixes

Air Content Slump Unit WeightMix ID

(%) (in.) (lb/ft3)

OLB T - I 5.6 3.5 148 OLBT - I (CR) 4.0 0.6 149

OLBT - II 3.4 0.5 150OLBT - II (CR) 4.8 1.4 149

CLB 5.8 3.0 148 OLB 5.2 2.9 148OLFB 6.8 4.0 145

28 DayComp. Strength

(psi)

4842538454374693

46174304

4928

1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3



A-11

Table AG21: Concrete Cylinder Compressive Strength (Granite Aggregate) for Trial Mixes

Air Content Slump Unit WeightMix ID

(%) (in.) (lb/ft3)

OGB T(1) 5.2 1.5 148 OGFB T(1) 6.8 1.9 144

2OGFB T(1) 6.0 1.8 146OGB T(2) 6.6 1.5 145

OGFB T(2) 6.4 1.5 146

CGB T(1) 5.6 2.1 146 OGFB T(1)-2 5.0 1.0 147 OGFB T(2)-2 5.2 0.8 147

28 DayComp. Strength

(psi)

56805310498152085164

529361125801

1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3



A-12

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in

Perc

ent P

assi

ng

Sieve Size Si Si ( )

Figure AQ1: Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate (Fischer).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in

Perc

ent P

assi

ng

Sieve Size Figure AQ2: Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate (Birdsall- Wasta)

A-13

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in

Perc

ent P

assi

ng

Sieve Size Figure AQ3: Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate (Opperman)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in

Perc

ent P

assi

ng

Sieve Size Figure AQ4: Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate (# 4 Spencer Quarry)

A-14

Sieve Size Figure AQ5: Sieve Analysis of C ate (1 1/2 inch Spencer Quarry)

igure AQ6 Sieve Anal is of ate (1 inch Spencer Quarry)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in 3/4 in 1.5 in

Perc

ent P

assi

ng

ourse Aggreg

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in 3/4 in 1.0 in 1.5 in

Perc

ent P

assi

ng

Sieve Size F : ys Course Aggreg

A-15

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in 3/4 in

Perc

ent P

assi

ng

Sieve Size Figure AQ7: Sieve Analysis of Course Aggregate (3/4 inch Unwashed-Spencer Quarry)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Perc

ent P

assi

ng

Sieve Size Figure AQ8: Sieve Analysis of Course Aggregate (3/4 inch washed-Spencer Quarry)

A-16

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Perc

ent P

assi

ng

Sieve Size

Figure AQ9: Sieve Analysis of Course Aggregate (9/16 inch Spencer Quarry)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in

Perc

ent P

assi

ng

Sieve Size Figure AQ10: Sieve Analysis of Course Aggregate (7/16 inch Spencer Quarry)

A-17

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in

Perc

ent P

assi

ng

Sieve Size Figure AQ11: Sieve Analysis of Course Aggregate (3/8 inch Spencer Quarry)

Sieve Size

Figure AL12: Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate – Birdsall Creston

A-18

Sieve Size Figure AL13: Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate – 1.5 inch Aggregate (Initially Supplied) - Hills Material

Sieve Size Figure AL14: Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate - 3/4 inch Aggregate (Initially Supplied - Hills Material)

A-19

Sieve Size

Figure AL15: Sieve Analysis of Initial Blend - 35 % of 1.5 inch, 30% of 3/4 inch Aggregate (Initially Supplied) – Hills Material - and 30% of Fine Aggregate -Birdsall Creston

Sieve Size

Figure AL16: Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate -1.5 inch Limestone Aggregate (New Improved) - Hills Material.

A-20

Sieve Size Figure AL17: Sieve Analysis of Improved Blend - 35 % of 1.5 in (New Improved), 30% of 3/4 inch Aggregate (Initially Supplied) – Hills Material - And 30% of Fine Aggregate - Birdsall Creston

Sieve Size

Figure AL18: Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate – 1.5 inch Aggregate) (Finally Supplied - Hills Material )

A-21

Sieve Size

Figure AL19: Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate -1.0 inch Limestone Aggregate (Finally Supplied-Hills Material)

Sieve Size

Figure AL20: Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate - 3/4 inch Limestone Aggregate (Finally Supplied-Hills Material)

A-22

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Perc

ent P

assi

ng

Sieve Size

Figure AG21: Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate (1 ½ inch Ortonville Stone)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Perc

ent P

assi

ng

Sieve Size

Figure AG22: Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate (3/4 inch Ortonville Stone)

A-23

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Sieve Size

Perc

ent P

assi

ng

Figure AG23: Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate (1 inch Ortonville Stone)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

No.100 No.50 No.30 No.16 No.8 No.4 3/8 in

Perc

ent P

assi

ng

Sieve Size

Figure AG24: Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate ( Birdsall Creston Sand)

A-24

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 1 2 3 4 5{Sieve size-mm}0.45

Perc

ent p

assi

ng

6

Figure AQ25: Comparison of Optimum Gradation with 0.45 Power Chart for Quartzite Aggregate

Figure AL26: Comparison of Optimum Gradation with 0.45 Power Chart for Limestone Aggregate

A-25

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 1 2 3 4 5

(Sieve Size - mm)^0.45

Perc

ent P

assi

ng

6

Figure AG27: Comparison of Optimum Gradation with 0.45 Power Chart for Granite Aggregate

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100ASTM Standard Sieve Size

Perc

ent f

iner

by

wei

ght

Sandy MixOptimum MixHarsh MixCombined Gradation

Figure AQ28: Comparison of Optimum Gradation (Quartzite) with Shilstone Method

A-26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100

ASTM Standard Sieve Size

Perc

ent f

iner

by

wei

ght

Sandy Mix

Optimum Mix

Harsh Mix

Combined Gradation

Figure AL29: Comparison of Optimum Gradation (Limestone) (30% - 35% - 35% Blend) with Shilstone Method.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100


Perc

ent f

iner

by

wei

ght

Combined Gradation

Sandy mix (Shillstone method)

Optimum mix (Shillstonemethod)Harsh mix (Shillstone method)

Figure AG30: Comparison of Optimum Gradation (Granite) with Shilstone Method

A-27

WO

RK

AB

ILIT

Y F

AC

TO

R

COARSENESS FACTOR Figure AQ31: USAF constructability chart for Optimum Gradation of Quartzite Aggregate 45

35

25

20

30

40

304050607080

CO

ARSE

SANDY

W ELLG RADED1-1/2"-3/4"

W ELLG RADEDM inus 3/4"

CO

ARSE

GAP

GR

ADED

RO CKY

CO NTROL LINE

AGG

REG

ATE

SIZE

FIN

E

C O AR SEN ESS FACTO R

WO

RK

ABIL

ITY

FAC

TOR

2

1

27.5

Figure AL32: UASF Constructability chart for Optimum Gradation

of limestone Aggregate (30% - 35% - 35% Blend)

A-28

45

35

25

20

30

40

304050607080

CO

ARSE

SANDY

WELLGRADED1-1/2"-3/4"

WELLGRADEDMinus 3/4"

CO

ARSE

GAP

GR

ADED

ROCKY

CONTROL LINE

AGG

REG

ATE

SIZE

FIN

E 2

COARSENESS FACTOR

WO

RK

ABIL

ITY

FAC

TOR

1

27.5

Figure AG33: USAF constructability chart for Optimum Gradation of Granite Aggregate

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No.100Sieve Size

Perc

ent R

etai

ned

betw

een

siev

es

RetainedUpper LimitLower Limit

Figure AQ34: Comparison of Optimum Gradation of Quartzite Aggregate with 8-18 Method.

A-29

Figure AL35: Comparison of Optimum Gradation of Limestone (30% - 35% - 35% Blend) with 8 – 18 Method.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100

Sieve Size

Perc

ent R

etai

ned

betw

een

siev

es

RetainedUpper LimitLower Limit

Figure AG36: Comparison of Optimum Gradation of Granite Aggregate with 8-18 Method

A-30

Figure AL37 (a): Comparison of Optimum Gradation (Blend with 23% of 1.5 inch Aggregate, 43% of 3/4 inch Aggregate – Hills Material - and 35% of Fine Aggregate – Birdsall Creston) with 0.45 Power Chart (Limestone Aggregate)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100


Perc

ent f

iner

by

wei

ght

Sandy MixOptimum MixHarsh MixCombined Gradation

Figure AL38 (a): Comparison of Optimum Gradation of Limestone Aggregate (23% - 42% - 35% Blend) with Shilstone Method.

A-31

Figure AL39 (a): Comparison of Optimum Gradation of Limestone Aggregate (23% - 42% - 35% Blend) with 8 – 18 Method.

4 5

3 5

2 5

2 0

3 0

4 0

30405 0607080

CO

ARSE

S AN D Y

W E L L G R AD E D1-1 /2"-3 /4"

W E L L G R AD E DM in u s 3 /4"

CO

ARSE

GAP

GR

ADED

R O C K Y

C O N TR O L L IN E

AGG

REG

ATE

SIZE

FIN

E

C O A R S E N E S S FA C T O R

WO

RK

ABIL

ITY

FAC

TOR

2

1

27 .5

Figure AL40 (a): USAF Constructability chart for Optimum Gradation of Limestone Aggregate (23% - 42% - 35% Blend)

A-32

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

CQB45

OQB45

OQFB45

CQB45

A

OQB45

A

OQFB45

A

CQB40

OQB40

OQFB40

CQB43

OQB43

OQFB43

CQB42

OQB42

R

O

QFB42 R

Mix Designation

Slum

p (in

.)

Figure AQ41: Slump of Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregates.

Figure AL42: Slump of Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone

Aggregates

A-33

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

OGB T(1)

OGFB T(1)

2O

GFB T(1)

OGB T(2)

OGFB T(2)

CGB T(1)

OGFB T(1)

-2

OGFB T(2)

-2

Mix Designation

Slum

p (in

.)

Figure AG43: Slump of Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

CQB45

OQB45

OQFB45

CQB45

A

OQB45

A

OQFB45

A

CQB40

OQB40

OQFB40

CQB43

OQB43

OQFB43

CQB42

OQB42

R

OQFB42

R

Mix Designation

Air

Con

tent

(%)

Figure AQ44: Air Content of Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregates

A-34

Figure AL45: Air Content of Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

OGB T(1)

OGFB T(1)

2O

GFB T(1)

OGB T(2)

OGFB T(2)

CGB T(1)

OGFB T(1)

-2

OGFB T(2)

-2

Mix Designation

Air

Con

tent

(%)

Figure AG46: Air Content of Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates

A-35

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

CQB45

OQB45

OQFB45

CQB45

A

OQB45

A

OQFB45

A

CQB40

OQB40

OQFB40

CQB43

OQB43

OQFB43

CQB42

OQB42

R

O

QFB42 R

Mix Designation

Uni

t Wei

ght (

lb/ft

3 )

Figure AQ47: Unit Weight of Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate

0102030405060708090

100110120130140150

OLBT - I OLBT - I(CR)

OLBT - II OLBT - II(CR)

CLB OLB OLFB

Mix Designation

Uni

t Wei

ght(l

b/ft3 )

Figure AL48: Unit Weight of Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates

A-36

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

OGB T(1)

OGFB T(1)

2O

GFB T(1)

OGB T(2)

OGFB T(2)

CGB T(1)

OGFB T(1)

-2

OGFB T(2)

-2

Mix Designation

Uni

t Wei

ght (

lb/ft

3 )

Figure AG49: Unit Weight of Trial Mixes for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0


Slum

p (in

)

Figure AQ50: Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix1)

A-37

Figure AL51: Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate (Mix 1)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0


Mix

Slum

p (in

.)

Figure AG52: Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate (Mix2)

A-38

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0


i 2 C i f Ai C f i C

Air

Con

tent

(%)

Figure AQ53: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix1)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Mix

Air

Con

tent

(%)

Figure AL54: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Limestone Aggregate (Mix1)

A-39

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0


Mix

Air

Con

tent

(%)

Figure AG55: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate (Mix 2)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160


Uni

t Wei

ght (

pcf)

Figure AQ56: Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 1)

A-40

Figure AL57: Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Limestone Aggregate (Mix 1)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180


Mix

Uni

t Wei

ght (

lb/ft

3 )

Figure AG58: Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate (Mix 2)

A-41

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5


Slum

p (in

)

Figure AQ59: Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 2)


A-42

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0


Mix

Slum

p (in

.)

Figure AG61: Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate (Mix 3)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0


Air

Con

tent

(%)

Figure AQ62: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 2)

A-43

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0


Mix

Air

Con

tent

(%)

Figure AL63: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate (Mix 2)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0


Mix

Air

Con

tent

(%)


A-44

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140


Uni

t Wei

ght (

pcf)

Figure AQ65: Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 2)

Figure AL66: Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with

Limestone Aggregate (Mix 2)

A-45

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180


Mix

Uni

t Wei

ght (

lb/ft

3 )

Figure AG67: Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate (Mix 3)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0


Slum

p (in

)

Figure AQ68: Comparison Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 3)

A-46


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0


Mix

Slum

p (in

.)

Figure AG70: Comparison Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate (Mix 4)

A-47

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0


Air

Con

tent

(%)

Figure AQ71: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 3)

Figure AL72: Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate (Mix 3)

A-48

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Control Optimum without Fly Ash Optimum with Fly AshMix

Air

Con

tent

(%)


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160


Uni

t Wei

ght (

pcf)

Figure AQ74: Comparison of Unit Weights for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 3)

A-49

Figure AL75: Comparison of Unit Weights for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate (Mix 3)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180


Mix

Uni

t Wei

ght (

lb/ft

3)

Figure AG76: Comparison of Unit Weights for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate (Mix 4)

A-50

Figure AQ77 (a): Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Fi B19 dC i f Sl f B i D k C i h

0

1

2

3

4

5


Slum

p (in

.)


Figure AQ78 (a): Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


Air

Con

tent

(%)


A-51

Figure AQ79 (a): Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180


Uni

t Wei

ght (

pcf)


Figure AQ80 (a): Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with

4

0

1

2

3


Slum

p (in

.)


A-52

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Air

Con

tent

(%)

Figure AQ81 (a): Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 2)

Figure AQ82 (a): Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 2)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

80


Uni

t Wei

ght (

pcf)

1

A-53

0

1

2

3

4


Slum

p (in

.)

Figure AQ83 (a): Comparison of Slump for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 4)

Figure AQ84 (a): Comparison of Air Content for Bridge Deck Concrete with

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


Air

Con

tent

(%)


A-54

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180


Uni

t Wei

ght (

pcf)

Figure AQ85 (a): Comparison of Unit Weight for Bridge Deck Concrete with i 2 C i f i i f i C Quartzite Aggregate (Mix 4)

Appendix - B

Details of Hardened Concrete properties of mixes done for the determination of Strength

Development

B-1

Table BQ1: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Control Mix for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate

Mix Specimen Age Diameter Length Static Modulus Dry Unit Weight Comp. StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (106 psi) (lb/ft3) (psi)

CQB CQB-1 1 3.962 8.031 N. A 146 1623CQB-2 1 3.952 8.139 N. A 147 1713CQB-3 1 4.016 8.062 N. A 145 1698

Average 146 1678Std. Dev 0.64 48

% C.V 0.44 2.87



% C.V 0.53 1.59



% C.V 0.56 2.00

CQB CQB-10 14 3.955 8.114 N. A 148 4561CQB-11 14 3.950 8.083 N. A 149 4613CQB-12 14 3.958 8.119 N. A 148 4472Average 148 4549Std. Dev 0.70 71

% C.V 0.47 1.57

CQB CQB-13 28 3.950 8.022 4.78 148 5266CQB-14 28 3.920 8.193 4.76 149 5181CQB-15 28 3.950 8.077 4.76 149 5185Average 4.77 149 5211Std. Dev 0.01 0.68 48

% C.V 0.24 0.46 0.92

CQB CQB-16 56 3.985 8.013 5.01 148 5415CQB-17 56 4.012 8.005 4.99 150 5303CQB-18 56 4.010 8.018 5.12 150 5268Average 5.04 150 5328Std. Dev 0.07 1.07 77

% C.V 1.39 0.72 1.44

CQB CQB-19 90 4.005 8.023 5.37 148 5520CQB-20 90 3.983 8.015 5.33 152 5541CQB-21 90 3.992 8.006 5.21 151 5476Average 5.30 151 5512Std. Dev 0.08 1.86 33.13

% C.V 1.57 1.23 0.60

1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3



B-2

Table BL2: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Control Mix for Bridge Deck Concrete with limestone Aggregate


CLB CLB-1 1 3.967 8.134 N. A 150 2670CLB-2 1 3.971 8.145 N. A 147 2826CLB-3 1 3.985 8.073 N. A 148 2847


% C.V 1.03 3.48



% C.V 1.06 2.09


Average 144 4151Std. Dev 3.21 125

% C.V 2.23 3.01

CLB CLB-10 14 3.942 8.118 N. A 150 4589CLB-11 14 3.970 8.128 N. A 148 4282CLB-12 14 3.978 8.143 N. A 150 4425Average 149 4432Std. Dev 1.15 154

% C.V 0.77 3.47

CLB CLB-13 28 4.013 8.156 4.79 145 4998CLB-14 28 4.013 8.157 4.78 145 4978CLB-15 28 3.997 8.157 4.81 148 5048Average 4.79 146 5008Std. Dev 0.02 1.73 36

% C.V 0.32 1.19 0.72


% C.V 0.24 0.42 0.47


% C.V 0.58 0.41 0.17

SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm1 lb - 0.4536 kgN. A - Not Applicable

1 psi - 0.0069 MPa 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3

B-3

Table BG3: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Control Mix for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate


CGB CGB-1 1 4.035 8.153 N. A 142 2072CGB-2 1 4.025 8.136 N. A 140 2122CGB-3 1 4.036 8.130 N. A 140 2110

Average 141 2101Std. Dev 1.15 26% C.V 0.82 1.24





CGB CGB-10 14 4.018 8.144 N. A 141 4574CGB-11 14 4.028 8.140 N. A 140 4513CGB-12 14 4.026 8.140 N. A 140 4516Average 140 4534Std. Dev 0.58 34% C.V 0.41 0.76

CGB CGB-13 28 4.004 8.030 4.78 142 5003CGB-14 28 4.005 8.037 4.76 142 4962CGB-15 28 4.006 8.033 4.79 142 5039Average 4.78 142 5001Std. Dev 0.02 0.00 39% C.V 0.32 0.00 0.77




1 psi - 0.0069 MPa 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3

SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm1 lb - 0.4536 kg

B-4

Table: BQ4: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Optimum

Mix without Fly Ash for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate


OQB OQB-1 1 4.015 8.170 N. A 149 2573OQB-2 1 4.020 8.233 N. A 148 2518OQB-3 1 3.970 8.153 N. A 149 2586


% C.V 0.55 1.41



% C.V 0.37 1.96



% C.V 0.42 1.20

OQB OQB-10 14 3.958 8.115 N. A 149 4756OQB-11 14 3.985 8.036 N. A 149 4733OQB-12 14 3.950 8.108 N. A 150 4776Average 149 4755Std. Dev 0.28 22

% C.V 0.19 0.45

OQB OQB-13 28 4.009 8.034 4.96 148 5390OQB-14 28 4.014 8.029 4.92 148 5297OQB-15 28 4.003 8.017 4.91 151 5406Average 4.93 149 5364Std. Dev 0.03 1.54 59

% C.V 0.54 1.04 1.09

OQB OQB-16 56 3.979 8.014 5.19 152 5713OQB-17 56 4.014 8.003 5.20 148 5534OQB-18 56 3.893 8.019 5.17 152 5842Average 5.19 151 5696Std. Dev 0.02 2.26 154

% C.V 0.29 1.50 2.71

OQB OQB-19 90 3.999 8.012 5.45 149 5815OQB-20 90 3.980 8.011 5.47 152 5871OQB-21 90 4.010 8.027 5.41 150 5823Average 5.44 150 5836Std. Dev 0.03 1.52 30.14

% C.V 0.56 1.02 0.52

1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3



B-5

Table: BL5: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Optimum Mix without Fly Ash for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone

Aggregate


OLB OLB-1 1 3.984 8.155 N. A 150 2487OLB-2 1 3.983 8.092 N. A 148 2408OLB-3 1 3.963 8.088 N. A 152 2513


% C.V 1.33 2.21


Average 145 3552Std. Dev 1.53 192

% C.V 1.05 5.40


Average 146 3968Std. Dev 1.73 123

% C.V 1.19 3.09

OLB OLB-10 14 3.938 8.220 N. A 153 4804OLB-11 14 3.967 8.128 N. A 149 4774OLB-12 14 3.977 8.144 N. A 148 4871Average 150 4816Std. Dev 2.65 50

% C.V 1.76 1.03

OLB OLB-13 28 4.012 8.103 5.11 148 5203OLB-14 28 3.996 8.178 4.98 147 5203OLB-15 28 3.994 8.178 5.12 143 5247Average 5.07 146 5218Std. Dev 0.08 2.65 25

% C.V 1.54 1.81 0.49


% C.V 0.82 0.39 0.56


% C.V 0.67 1.21 0.23SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa 1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3


B-6

Table: BG6: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Optimum Mix without Fly Ash for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite

Aggregate Mix Specimen Age Diameter Length Static Modulus Dry Unit Weight Comp. StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (106 psi) (lb/ft3) (psi)

OGB OGB-1 1 4.024 8.150 N. A 143 2319OGB-2 1 4.006 8.135 N. A 143 2301OGB-3 1 4.030 8.094 N. A 142 2391






OGB OGB-10 14 4.024 8.118 N. A 141 5071OGB-11 14 4.016 8.129 N. A 142 5014OGB-12 14 4.014 8.123 N. A 142 5018Average 142 5034Std. Dev 0.58 32% C.V 0.41 0.63

OGB OGB-13 28 4.010 8.038 5.13 143 5423OGB-14 28 4.018 8.021 5.15 144 5520OGB-15 28 4.012 8.025 5.12 143 5378Average 5.13 143 5440Std. Dev 0.02 0.58 73% C.V 0.30 0.40 1.33



1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3



B-7

Table BQ7: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Optimum Mix with Fly Ash for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate


OQFB OQFB-1 1 3.991 8.075 N. A 149 3519OQFB-2 1 4.004 8.038 N. A 148 3456OQFB-3 1 4.018 8.032 N. A 149 3511Average 149 3496Std. Dev 0.60 34

% C.V 0.40 0.98


% C.V 0.70 2.17


% C.V 0.77 0.30


% C.V 0.36 0.53

OQFB OQFB-13 28 3.970 8.013 6.01 151 6506OQFB-14 28 3.999 8.012 5.95 151 6452OQFB-15 28 4.009 8.019 6.21 150 6460Average 6.06 151 6473Std. Dev 0.14 0.46 29

% C.V 2.24 0.31 0.45

OQFB OQFB-16 56 4.021 8.021 6.16 150 6658OQFB-17 56 4.023 8.019 6.14 150 6572OQFB-18 56 3.887 8.036 6.24 152 6745Average 6.18 151 6658Std. Dev 0.05 1.48 86

% C.V 0.86 0.98 1.30

OQFB OQFB-19 90 4.021 8.091 6.55 149 6815OQFB-20 90 3.999 8.079 6.47 152 6851OQFB-21 90 4.010 8.056 6.43 151 6853Average 6.48 151 6839Std. Dev 0.06 1.53 21.04

% C.V 0.94 1.01 0.31

1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3



B-8

Table BL8: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Optimum Mix with Fly Ash for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate


OLFB OLFB-1 1 3.990 8.170 N. A 149 2599OLFB-2 1 4.000 8.145 N. A 149 2467OLFB-3 1 3.977 8.135 N. A 149 2535Average 149 2534Std. Dev 0.00 66

% C.V 0.00 2.61


% C.V 0.40 0.45


% C.V 0.39 1.61


% C.V 0.77 0.94

OLFB OLFB-13 28 4.030 8.127 5.35 144 5565OLFB-14 28 4.017 8.088 5.41 149 5510OLFB-15 28 3.996 8.202 5.39 148 5659Average 5.38 147 5578Std. Dev 0.03 2.65 75

% C.V 0.57 1.80 1.35


% C.V 0.70 0.40 0.30


% C.V 1.15 2.44 0.31

1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3



B-9

Table BG9: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Optimum Mix with Fly Ash for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate


OGFB OGFB-1 1 4.039 8.134 N. A 143 2497OGFB-2 1 4.027 8.101 N. A 143 2473OGFB-3 1 4.035 8.152 N. A 143 2541Average 143 2504Std. Dev 0.00 34% C.V 0.00 1.38




OGFB OGFB-13 28 4.011 8.047 5.43 145 5778OGFB-14 28 4.020 8.026 5.42 143 5712OGFB-15 28 4.028 8.023 5.43 145 5769Average 5.43 144 5753Std. Dev 0.01 1.15 36% C.V 0.11 0.80 0.62



1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3



B-10

Table BQ10: Flexural Strength of the Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete

Mix ID Specimen Age Breadth Depth Flexural StrengthID ( Days ) ( in ) ( in ) ( psi )

CQB CQB -1 14 4.167 4.02 510CQB-2 14 4.074 4.089 525CQB-3 14 4.092 4.056 494

Average 510Std. Dev 15.61

%C.V 3.06

CQB CQB-4 28 4.034 3.897 617CQB-5 28 3.997 3.899 611CQB-6 28 4.02 4.062 602

Average 610Std.Dev 7.77% C.V 1.27

SI Unit Conversion Factors1 Inch -25.4 mm1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 Mpa Table BL11: Flexural Strength of the Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete

Mix Specimen Age Breadth Depth Flexural StrengthID ID (Days) (in.) (in.) (psi)

CLB CLB 1 14 4.015 4.001 510CLB 2 14 4.005 4.000 525CLB 3 14 4.005 4.001 515


% C.V 1.48

CLB CLB 4 28 4.025 4.005 583CLB 5 28 4.035 4.000 587CLB 6 28 4.030 4.005 570


% C.V 1.53

SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 Mpa

B-11

Table BG12: Flexural Strength of the Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete


CGB CGB 1 14 4.010 4.004 526CGB 2 14 4.008 3.998 533CGB 3 14 4.006 3.990 537


% C.V 1.05

CGB CGB 4 28 4.035 4.009 602CGB 5 28 4.050 4.000 615CGB 6 28 4.038 4.002 606


% C.V 1.10

SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 Mpa Table BQ13: Flexural Strength of the Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete


OQB OQB -1 14 4.092 4.088 512OQB-2 14 4.088 4.078 535OQB-3 14 4.018 4.056 545


%C.V 3.25

OQB OQB-4 28 4.079 4.078 640OQB-5 28 4.068 4.062 626OQB-6 28 4.051 4.085 611

Average 625Std.Dev 14.43% C.V 2.31

SI Unit Conversion Factors1 Inch -25.4 mm1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 Mpa

B-12

Table BL14: Flexural Strength of the Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete Without Fly Ash


OLB OLB 1 14 4.018 4.005 555OLB 2 14 4.020 4.005 535OLB 3 14 4.025 4.000 535


% C.V 2.13

OLB OLB 4 28 4.020 4.010 610OLB 5 28 4.020 4.015 605OLB 6 28 4.025 4.010 605


% C.V 0.48

SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 Mpa Table BG15: Flexural Strength of the Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete Without Fly Ash


OGB OGB 1 14 4.026 3.999 570OGB 2 14 4.032 4.002 566OGB 3 14 4.040 4.000 566


% C.V 0.41

OGB OGB 4 28 4.023 3.998 624OGB 5 28 4.030 3.988 625OGB 6 28 4.000 4.005 637


% C.V 1.15


B-13

Table BQ16 (a): Flexural Strength of the Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash (Trial)


OQFB OQFB -1 14 4.034 4.038 511OQFB-2 14 4.029 4.062 505OQFB-3 14 4.015 4.089 516Average 511Std. Dev 5.36

%C.V 1.05

OQFB OQFB-4 28 4.038 4.021 600OQFB-5 28 4.099 4.072 618OQFB-6 28 4.031 4.045 605Average 608Std.Dev 9.10% C.V 1.50

SI Unit Conversion Factors1 Inch -25.4 mm1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 Mpa Table BQ16: Flexural Strength of the Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash


OQFB OQFB -1 14 4.021 4.094 602OQFB-2 14 4.063 4.039 613OQFB-3 14 4.029 4.055 613Average 609Std. Dev 5.93

%C.V 0.97

OQFB OQFB-4 28 4.039 4.039 701OQFB-5 28 4.072 4.071 716OQFB-6 28 4.048 4.042 730Average 716Std.Dev 14.58% C.V 2.04

SI Unit Conversion Factors1 Inch -25.4 mm1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 Mpa

B-14

Table BL17: Flexural Strength of the Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash

M ix Specim en Age Breadth D epth F lexura l S trengthID ID (D ays) (in .) (in .) (ps i)

O LFB O LFB 1 14 4.010 4.005 610O LFB 2 14 4.015 4.005 615O LFB 3 14 4.015 4.008 613Average 613Std . D ev 2.52

% C .V 0.41

O LFB O LFB 4 28 4.005 4.005 676O LFB 5 28 4.010 4.010 654O LFB 6 28 4.025 3.995 655Average 662Std . D ev 12.42

% C .V 1.88

SI U nit C onversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 m m 1 lb - 0 .4536 kg1 ps i - 0 .0069 M pa Table BG18: Flexural Strength of the Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash


OGFB OGFB 1 14 4.015 4.000 613OGFB 2 14 4.022 4.004 623OGFB 3 14 4.000 4.016 660Average 632Std. Dev 24.76

% C.V 3.92

OGFB OGFB 4 28 4.033 3.999 676OGFB 5 28 4.000 4.000 680OGFB 6 28 4.001 4.007 700Average 685Std. Dev 12.86

% C.V 1.88


B-15

Table BQ19: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Control Mix for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (for 8.4%)








CQB CQB-10 14 4.022 8.015 N. A 148 4685CQB-11 14 4.008 8.020 N. A 149 4795CQB-12 14 4.005 8.017 N. A 149 4763Average 149 4748Std. Dev 0.58 57% C.V 0.39 1.19

CQB CQB-13 28 4.000 8.072 4.86 150 5449CQB-14 28 3.998 8.057 4.87 150 5339CQB-15 28 4.002 8.077 4.86 149 5366Average 4.86 150 5385Std. Dev 0.01 0.58 57% C.V 0.12 0.39 1.06



SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa 1 lb - 0.4536 kgN. A - Not Applicable

1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3

B-16

Table: BQ20: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Optimum Mix without Fly Ash for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (for 8.4 %)








OQB OQB-10 14 4.018 8.020 N. A 148 4928OQB-11 14 4.013 8.020 N. A 148 4980OQB-12 14 4.007 8.007 N. A 150 4997Average 149 4968Std. Dev 1.15 36% C.V 0.78 0.72

OQB OQB-13 28 4.008 8.077 5.13 148 5626OQB-14 28 4.027 8.065 5.08 150 5534OQB-15 28 4.023 8.048 5.41 149 5743Average 5.21 149 5634Std. Dev 0.18 1.00 105% C.V 3.42 0.67 1.86



SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm 1 psi - 0.0069 MPa 1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3


B-17

Table: BQ21: Cylinder Compressive Strength and Static Modulus of the Optimum Mix with Fly Ash for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate (for 8.4 %)


OQFB OQFB-1 1 4.026 8.027 N. A 149 2553OQFB-2 1 4.028 8.023 N. A 150 2590OQFB-3 1 4.027 8.020 N. A 149 2590Average 149 2578Std. Dev 0.58 21% C.V 0.39 0.83




OQFB OQFB-13 28 4.002 8.056 6.25 152 6624OQFB-14 28 4.007 8.033 6.23 150 6542OQFB-15 28 4.017 8.042 6.20 151 6588Average 6.23 151 6585Std. Dev 0.03 1.00 41% C.V 0.40 0.66 0.62



1 lb - 0.4536 kg 1 lb/ft3 - 16.02 kg/m3



B-18

Table BQ22: Flexural Strength of the Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete


CQB CQB 1 14 4.067 3.988 548CQB 2 14 4.038 3.993 550CQB 3 14 4.070 4.000 555

Average 551Std. Dev 3.61% C.V. 0.65

CQB CQB 4 28 4.085 4.083 617CQB 5 28 4.007 3.998 637CQB 6 28 4.067 4.063 608


1 psi - 0.0069 MPa 1 lb - 0.4536 kg

SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm

Table BQ23: Flexural Strength of the Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash


OQB OQB 1 14 4.050 3.980 552OQB 2 14 4.065 3.995 536OQB 3 14 3.993 3.985 586


OQB OQB 4 28 4.073 4.068 623OQB 5 28 4.068 4.007 661OQB 6 28 4.063 3.993 648


SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 MPa

B-19

Table BQ24: Flexural Strength of the Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash


OQFB OQFB 1 14 4.052 4.007 635OQFB 2 14 4.048 3.990 640OQFB 3 14 4.028 4.018 634Average 636Std. Dev 3.21% C.V. 0.51

OQFB OQFB 4 28 4.070 3.985 724OQFB 5 28 4.051 4.022 732OQFB 6 28 4.002 3.999 731Average 729Std. Dev 4.36% C.V. 0.60

1 lb - 0.4536 kg1 psi - 0.0069 MPa

SI Unit Conversion Factors1 inch - 25.4 mm

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

CQB45

OQB45

OQFB45

CQB45

A

OQB45

A

OQFB45

A

CQB40

OQB40

OQFB40

CQB43

OQB43

OQFB43

CQB42

OQB42

R

O

QFB42 R

Mix Designation

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (p

si)

Figure BQ1: 28 Day Compressive Strengths of Trial Bridge Deck Concretes With Quartzite Aggregate

B-20

Figure BL2: 28 Day Compressive Strengths of Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

OGB T(1)

OGFB T(1)

2O

GFB T(1)

OGB T(2)

OGFB T(2)

CGB T(1)

OGFB T(1)

-2

OGFB T(2)

-2

Mix Designation

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (p

si)

Figure BG3: 28 Day Compressive Strengths of Trial Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate

Appendix – C

Details of Setting Times for all concretes with Quartzite, Limestone and Granite Aggregate

C-1

Table CQ1 (a): Observations of Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete for Initial and Final Setting Time

ote: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction.

able CQ1: Observations of Control Quartzite Bridge Deck

Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed (min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)

9:35 PM 195 16 1.00 0.7854 20.3710:05 PM 225 24 1.00 0.7854 30.5610:35 PM 255 76 1.00 0.7854 96.7711:05 PM 285 72 0.50 0.1963 366.7011:35 PM 315 53 0.25 0.0491 1079.7411:50 PM 330 89 0.25 0.0491 1813.1512:00 PM 340 45 0.10 0.0079 5729.7512:05 PM 345 65 0.10 0.0079 8276.30

N T Concrete for Initial and Final Setting Time

Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed (min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)1:30 110 0 1.00 0.7854 0.001:45 125 7 1.00 0.7854 8.912:15 155 34 1.00 0.7854 43.292:45 185 91 1.00 0.7854 115.873:00 200 123 1.00 0.7854 156.613:15 215 101 0.50 0.1963 514.403:30 230 71 0.25 0.0491 1446.443:45 245 123 0.25 0.0491 2505.813:50 250 128 0.25 0.0491 2607.674:00 260 61 0.1 0.00785 7766.994:10 270 77 0.1 0.00785 9804.23

able CQ2 (a): Observations of Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck ing Time

T Concrete without Fly Ash for Initial and Final Sett


8:05 PM 180 10 1.00 0.7854 12.738:35 PM 210 33 1.00 0.7854 42.029:05 PM 240 64 1.00 0.7854 81.499:35 PM 270 82 0.50 0.1963 417.6310:05 PM 300 82 0.25 0.0491 1670.5410:15 PM 310 45 0.10 0.0079 5729.7510:25 PM 320 65 0.10 0.0079 8276.3010:35 PM 330 85 0.10 0.0079 10822.86

C-2

Note: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction. Table CQ2: Observations of Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash for Initial and Final Setting Time

Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed (min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)10:30 180 11 1.00 0.7854 14.011:45 195 31 1.00 0.7854 39.472:15 225 127 1.00 0.7854 161.712:45 255 126 0.50 0.1963 641.733:00 270 94 0.25 0.0491 1915.013:05 275 105 0.25 0.0491 2139.113:15 285 116 0.25 0.0491 2363.203:20 290 35 0.1 0.00785 4456.473:25 295 55 0.1 0.00785 7003.023:30 300 77 0.1 0.00785 9804.233:45 315 101 0.1 0.00785 12860.10

Table CQ3 (a): Observations of Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash for Initial and Final Setting Time


3:15 PM 180 4 1.00 0.7854 5.094:30 PM 255 11 1.00 0.7854 14.015:25 PM 310 27 1.00 0.7854 34.386:15 PM 360 85 1.00 0.7854 108.236:45 PM 390 95 0.50 0.1963 483.857:05 PM 410 122 0.50 0.1963 621.367:15 PM 420 82 0.25 0.0491 1670.547:30 PM 435 35 0.10 0.0079 4456.477:40 PM 445 52 0.10 0.0079 6621.047:45 PM 450 64 0.10 0.0079 8148.97

Note: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction. Table CQ3: Observations of Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash for Initial and Final Setting Time


2:00 210 8 1.00 0.7854 10.192:30 240 120 1.00 0.7854 152.793:10 280 56 0.50 0.1963 285.213:30 300 112 0.50 0.1963 570.433:45 315 77 0.25 0.0491 1568.684:05 335 61 0.10 0.00785 7766.994:35 365 110 0.10 0.00785 14006.05

C-3

Table CL4 (a): Observations of Trial Mix of Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete for Initial and Final Setting Time

Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed(min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)16:45 195 115 1.000 0.785 14617:15 225 58 0.500 0.196 29617:45 255 110 0.500 0.196 560.018:00 270 79 0.250 0.049 160918:15 285 50 0.100 0.008 641018:30 300 80 0.100 0.008 10256

Note: This mix was made with 15 percent cement reduction. Table CL4: Observations of Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete for Initial and Final Setting Time

Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed(min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)17:00 150 25 1.000 0.78500 3217:30 180 49 1.000 0.78500 6218:00 210 89 0.500 0.19625 45418:30 240 125 0.500 0.19625 63719:00 270 85 0.250 0.04906 173219:05 275 54 0.100 0.00785 687919:15 285 83 0.100 0.00785 10573

Table CL5 (a): Observations of Trail Mix of Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash for Initial and Final Setting Time


Note: This mix was made with 15 percent cement reduction. Table CL5: Observations of Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash for Initial and Final Setting Time


C-4

Table CL6 (a): Observations of Trial Mix of Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash for Initial and Final Setting Time

106596

24497875

Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed(min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)19:00 195 10 1.000 0.785 1319:30 225 15 1.000 0.785 1920:00 255 25 1.000 0.785 3220:30 285 45 1.000 0.785 5721:00 315 83 1.000 0.78522:00 375 117 0.500 0.19622:15 390 120 0.250 0.04922:30 405 63 0.100 0.008

Note: This mix was made with 15 percent cement reduction. Table CL6: Observations of Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash for Initial and Final Setting Time

1.000 0.785 15717:30 370 125 0.500 0.196 63817:45 385 86 0.250 0.049 175518:00 400 57 0.100 0.008 712518:15 415 71 0.100 0.008 887518:20 420 87 0.100 0.008 10875

Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed(min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)15:30 250 12 1.000 0.785 1516:00 280 22 1.000 0.785 2816:30 310 35 1.000 0.785 45

1.000 0.785 7917:00 340 6217:15 355 123

Table CG7: Observations of the Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete for Initial and Final Setting Time

Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed(min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)

15:42 pm 195 76 1.00 0.7854 96.7715:58 pm 210 64 0.50 0.1964 325.8716:10 pm 222 38 0.25 0.0491 773.9316:16 pm 228 64 0.25 0.0491 1303.4616:30 pm 242 35 0.10 0.0078 4487.1816:33 pm 245 42 0.10 0.0078 5384.62

C-5

Table CG8: Observations of the Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Time Concrete without Fly Ash for Initial and Final Setting

Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration

Tested Elapsed(min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)14:55 pm 205 48 1.00 0.7854 61.1215:15 pm 225 34 0.50 0.1964 173.1215:49 pm 259 66 0.25 0.0491 1344.2016:06 pm 276 41 0.10 0.0078 5256.4116:13 pm 283 64 0.10 0.0078 8205.13

Table CG9: Observations of the Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash for Initial and Final Setting Time

Time Time No. of Dia of Area of Penetration Tested Elapsed(min) Divisions Needle (in) Needle (in2) Resistance (psi)

15:00 pm 257 8 1.00 0.7854 10.1955

16:00 pm 317 44 1.00 0.7854 56.0316:30 pm 347 50 0.50 0.1964 254.5817:00 pm 377 58 0.25 0.0491 1181.2617:15 pm 392 32 0.10 0.0078 4102.5617:30 pm 407 65 0.10 0.0078 8276.30

15:30 pm 287 13 1.00 0.7854 16.

Figure CQ1 (a): Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete

ote: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction.

0

1

1 00

2 00

2 00

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Time Elapsed (Minutes)

Pene

trat

ion

Res

ista

nce

(psi

)

N

500

000

5

0

5

Initial Setting Time = 290 min

Final Setting Time = 335 min

C-6

0

500

5000

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Time Elapsed (Mins)

tion

Res

ista

nce

(psi

) Final Setting Time = 255 minPe

netr

a


Figure CQ1: Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300Time Elapsed (min)

Pene

tratio

n R

esis

tanc

e (p

si)



Figure CL2 (a): Time vs. Penetration Resistance of Control Limestone Bridge

Note: This mix was made with 15 percent cement reduction.

Deck Concrete

C-7

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

00 150 200 250 300Time Ela


Initial Settin

Pene

tratio

n R

esis

tanc

e (p

si)

g

0 50 1psed (min)

Time = 217 min

Figure CL2: Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Pene

trat

ion

Res

ista

nce

(psi

)



0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Time Elapsed (min) ite Bridge Deck Concrete

Figure CG3: Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Control Gran

C-8

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Time Elapsed (Minutes)

Pene

trat

ion

Res

ista

nce

(psi

)



Figure CQ4 (a): Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash Note: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Time Elapsed (Mins)

Pene

trat

ion

Res

ista

nce

(psi

)



Figure CQ4: Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash

C-9

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300Time Elapsed (min)

Pene

tratio

n R

esis

tanc

e (p

si)



Figu

Ash

re CL5 (a): Time vs. Penetration Resistance of Trial Mix for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Note: This mix was made with 15 percent cement reduction.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350Time Elapsed (min)

Pene

tratio

n R

esis

tanc

e (p

si)


Initial Setting Time = 260 i

Figure CL5: Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Opti Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash

mum Limestone

C-10

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Time Elapsed (min)

Pene

trat

ion

Res

ista

nce

(psi

)Final Setting Time = 272 min


Figure CG6: Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash

Figure CQ7 (a): Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 100 200 300 400 500Time Elapsed (Minutes)

Pene

trat

ion

Res

ista

nce

(psi

)

Initial Setting Time = 392


Note: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction.

C-11

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Time Elapsed (Mins)

Pene

trat

ion

Res

ista

nce

(psi

)



mum Quartzite

Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash

Figure CQ7: Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Opti

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450Time Elapsed (min)

Pene

tratio

n R

esis

tanc

e (p

si)



Figure CL8 (a): Time vs. Penetration Resistance of Trial Mix for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Note: This mix was made with 15 percent cement reduction.

C-12

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450Time Elapsed (min)

Pene

tratio

n R

esis

tanc

e (p

si)



Figure CL8: Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Optimum Limestone

Ash Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Time Elapsed (min)

Pene

trat

ion

Res

ista

nce

(psi

) Final Setting Time = 392 min


Figure CG9: Time vs. Penetration Resistance for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash

Appendix – D

Details of mixes done for the determination of resistance to Sulfate Attack

D-1

Table DQ1 (a): Mean Expansion of the Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete Exposed to Sulfate Solution

able DQ1: Mean Expansion of the Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete

Time Mean1 2 3 4 5 6 Expansion

(weeks) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.01100 0.01650 0.01950 0.01450 0.01400 0.01850 0.015672 0.01700 0.02100 0.02100 0.01900 0.02050 0.01950 0.019673 0.02050 0.02450 0.02450 0.02400 0.02300 0.02250 0.023174 0.02350 0.02650 0.02650 0.02500 0.02550 0.02600 0.025508 0.02500 0.02800 0.02750 0.02700 0.02650 0.02700 0.02683

13 0.02600 0.02900 0.02850 0.02600 0.02800 0.02950 0.0278015 0.02650 0.03000 0.02900 0.02700 0.03050 0.02800 0.02850

Length Change (%)Specimen No.

T Exposed to Sulfate Solution

Time Mean(weeks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Expansion

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.01100 0.01300 0.01350 0.01300 0.01400 0.01300 0.012922 0.02000 0.01900 0.01950 0.01900 0.02000 0.01950 0.019503 0.02150 0.02050 0.02300 0.02200 0.02250 0.02050 0.021674 0.02400 0.02300 0.02600 0.02450 0.02400 0.02150 0.023838 0.02600 0.02450 0.02850 0.02550 0.02550 0.02300 0.02550

13 0.02750 0.02600 0.03000 0.02650 0.02700 0.02450 0.0269215 0.02850 0.02700 0.03100 0.02750 0.02800 0.02550 0.02792


D-2

Table DL2: Mean Expansion of the Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete Exposed to Sulfate Solution


(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.00850 0.01400 0.01400 0.01300 0.02050 0.01800 0.014672 0.01700 0.01850 0.01750 0.01550 0.02050 0.01950 0.018083 0.02250 0.02450 0.01900 0.01700 0.02050 0.01950 0.020504 0.02400 0.02450 0.02000 0.01950 0.02150 0.02050 0.021678 0.02450 0.02500 0.02550 0.02050 0.02300 0.02150 0.02333

13 0.02550 0.02650 0.02650 0.02200 0.02550 0.02300 0.0248315 0.02600 0.02750 0.02800 0.02450 0.02600 0.02350 0.02592


Table DG3: Mean Expansion of the Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete Exposed to Sulfate Solution


(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.00750 0.01300 0.01500 0.01150 0.01950 0.01700 0.013922 0.01950 0.01900 0.01800 0.01950 0.01900 0.01700 0.018673 0.02100 0.02250 0.02150 0.02200 0.02250 0.01950 0.021504 0.02300 0.02350 0.02500 0.02400 0.02400 0.02050 0.023338 0.02450 0.02450 0.02750 0.02650 0.02550 0.02200 0.0250813 0.02650 0.02600 0.02900 0.02850 0.02700 0.02450 0.0269215 0.02750 0.02750 0.03100 0.02950 0.02900 0.02550 0.02833


able DQ4 (a): Mean Expansion of the Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete T without Fly Ash Exposed to Sulfate Solution

Time Mean1 2 3 4 5 6 Expansion

(weeks) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.01750 0.00800 0.01350 0.01350 0.01150 0.01500 0.013172 0.02300 0.01250 0.01800 0.01550 0.01500 0.01950 0.017253 0.02700 0.01650 0.02100 0.01900 0.02150 0.02000 0.020834 0.02950 0.01850 0.02300 0.02050 0.02450 0.02150 0.022928 0.03100 0.02000 0.02450 0.02150 0.02700 0.02150 0.02425

13 0.03150 0.02050 0.02500 0.02200 0.02750 0.02200 0.0247215 0.03250 0.02050 0.02500 0.02300 0.02900 0.02150 0.02525


D-3

Table DQ4: Mean Expansion of the Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash Exposed to Sulfate Solution


(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.01050 0.01050 0.00950 0.00950 0.01300 0.01200 0.010832 0.01400 0.01400 0.01250 0.01350 0.01600 0.01500 0.014173 0.01750 0.01700 0.01600 0.01700 0.01850 0.01850 0.017424 0.02000 0.01950 0.01850 0.02000 0.01950 0.02000 0.019588 0.02100 0.02050 0.01950 0.02150 0.02200 0.02050 0.0208313 0.02250 0.02150 0.02050 0.02300 0.02350 0.02150 0.0215015 0.02400 0.02300 0.02150 0.02400 0.02450 0.02250 0.02200


Table DL5: Mean Expansion of the Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash Exposed to Sulfate Solution


(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.01650 0.01500 0.00750 0.01500 0.00850 0.01350 0.012672 0.02200 0.01800 0.01050 0.01650 0.01150 0.01700 0.015923 0.02550 0.01950 0.01550 0.01800 0.01450 0.01950 0.018754 0.02550 0.02100 0.01650 0.01850 0.01800 0.01950 0.019838 0.02900 0.02100 0.01900 0.01850 0.02150 0.02050 0.02158

13 0.03150 0.02250 0.02100 0.01900 0.02150 0.02000 0.0225815 0.03300 0.02100 0.02150 0.02050 0.02200 0.02150 0.02325


Table DG6: Mean Expansion of the Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash Exposed to Sulfate Solution


(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.01200 0.01100 0.01250 0.01295 0.01250 0.01000 0.011832 0.01750 0.01550 0.01350 0.01500 0.01800 0.01550 0.015833 0.01900 0.02000 0.01850 0.01750 0.01950 0.01900 0.018924 0.02200 0.02100 0.02100 0.01950 0.02250 0.02100 0.021178 0.02250 0.02250 0.02350 0.02000 0.02500 0.02200 0.0225813 0.02350 0.02350 0.02500 0.02150 0.02550 0.02300 0.0236715 0.02400 0.02450 0.02600 0.02250 0.02700 0.02350 0.02458


D-4

Table DQ7 (a): Mean Expansion of the Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Exposed to Sulfate Solution

Time Mean(weeks) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Expansio

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.01050 0.01000 0.01000 0.01100 0.00950 0.00950 0.010082 0.01350 0.01300 0.01350 0.01450 0.01250 0.01300 0.013333 0.01600 0.01650 0.01650 0.01700 0.01600 0.01650 0.016424 0.01850 0.01800 0.01800 0.01700 0.01800 0.01750 0.017838 0.02050 0.02050 0.01950 0.02000 0.01950 0.01950 0.01992

1315

Specimen No.Length Change (%)

n

Table DQ7: Mean Expansion of the Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Exposed to Sulfate Solution


(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.00900 0.00950 0.00850 0.00900 0.00900 0.00900 0.009002 0.01100 0.01100 0.01200 0.01250 0.01200 0.01250 0.011833 0.01500 0.01550 0.01000 0.01550 0.01550 0.01600 0.015584 0.01650 0.01600 0.01750 0.01700 0.01700 0.01750 0.016928 0.01750 0.01750 0.01850 0.01800 0.01850 0.01850 0.0180813 0.01850 0.01850 0.01950 0.01900 0.01950 0.01900 0.0191715 0.01950 0.01950 0.02100 0.02000 0.02100 0.02000 0.01950


Table DL8: Mean Expansion of the Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Exposed to Sulfate Solution


(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.01200 0.01200 0.00700 0.01000 0.01500 0.01400 0.011672 0.01505 0.01450 0.00900 0.01250 0.01750 0.01650 0.014183 0.01600 0.01750 0.01050 0.01450 0.02000 0.01800 0.016084 0.01800 0.01900 0.01350 0.01600 0.02250 0.01950 0.018088 0.01950 0.02450 0.01450 0.01650 0.02300 0.02000 0.01967

13 0.01950 0.02500 0.01600 0.01750 0.02350 0.02150 0.0205015 0.02000 0.02500 0.01650 0.01850 0.02450 0.02200 0.02108


D-5

Table DG9: Mean Expansion of the Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Exposed to Sulfate Solution


(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000001 0.00900 0.00850 0.00850 0.01050 0.01100 0.01000 0.009582 0.01200 0.01400 0.01350 0.01450 0.01450 0.01250 0.013503 0.01600 0.01650 0.01700 0.01950 0.01550 0.01500 0.016584 0.01800 0.01950 0.01800 0.02050 0.01600 0.01650 0.018088 0.01850 0.02050 0.02050 0.02100 0.01700 0.01700 0.0190813 0.02000 0.02150 0.02200 0.02350 0.02000 0.01950 0.0210815 0.02150 0.02300 0.02400 0.02250 0.02200 0.02100 0.02233


Appendix – E

Details of mixes done for the determination of Rapid Chloride Permeability Test

E-1

Table EQ1 (a): Rapid Chloride Permeability Values for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregates

MIX Age Fly Ash Air Number Average Permeability RemarksID of (Coluombs) ASTM C 1202

(Days) (%) (%) Specimens classification

CQB 56 0 5.2 4 7669 High

OQB 56 0 5.0 4 6750 High

OQFB 56 25 6.2 4 2075 Moderate

CQB 90 0 5.2 4 7159 High

OQB 90 0 5.0 4 5850 High

OQFB 90 25 6.2 4 1763 Low Note: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction. Table EQ1: Rapid Chloride Permeability Values for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregates

M ix ID Age Fly Ash Air Permeability RemarksASTM C1202

(Days) ( % ) ( % ) (Coulombs) Classification

CQB 56 0 6.6 5400 High

OQB 56 0 6.6 3019 Moderate

OQFB 56 25 5.4 2306 Moderate

CQB 90 0 6.6 4830 High

OQB 90 0 6.6 2077 Moderate

OQFB 90 25 5.4 1800 Low


E-2

Table EL2 (a): Rapid Chloride Permeability Values of Trial Mix for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates



CLB 56 0 5.8 4 7200 High

OLB 56 0 5.2 4 6230 High

OLFB 56 25 6.8 4 3780 Moderate

CLB 90 0 5.8 4 6980 High

OLB 90 0 5.2 4 5890 High

OLFB 90 25 6.8 4 3470 Moderate Note: This mix was made with 15 percent cement reduction. Table EL2: Rapid Chloride Permeability Values for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregates



CLB 56 0 5.4 4 7120 High

OLB 56 0 5.2 4 5879 High

OLFB 56 25 5.6 4 3410 Moderate

CLB 90 0 6.4 4 6890 High

OLB 90 0 5.2 4 5540 High

OLFB 90 25 5.6 4 3190 Moderate Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction.

E-3

Table EG3: Rapid Chloride Permeability Values for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregates

Mix Age Fly Ash Air Number Avgerage Permeability RemarksID of (coulombs) ASTM C1202

(Days) (%) (%) Specimens Classification

CGB 56 0 6.2 4 7432 High

OGB 56 0 5.4 4 6230 High

OGFB 56 25 5.4 4 3905 Moderate

CGB 90 0 6.2 4 7132 High

OGB 90 0 5.4 4 5900 High

OGFB 90 25 5.4 4 3648 Moderate Note: This mix was made with 10percent cement reduction.

Appendix – F

Details of mixes done for the determination of Alkali Aggregate Reactivity

F-1

Table FQ1 (a): Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete Exposed to Alkali Solution

Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)

o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)

CQB1 70 35 0 0.01830 0.01830CQB2 70 35 0 0.01070 0.01070CQB3 70 35 0 0.06025 0.06025CQB4 70 35 0 0.06990 0.06990

Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L x L Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)

o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %

CQB1 70 35 0 0.01875 0.01875 0.00450CQB2 70 35 0 0.01125 0.01125 0.00550CQB3 70 35 0 0.06235 0.06235 0.02100CQB4 70 35 0 0.07110 0.07110 0.01200

Mean 0.01075

CQB1 70 30 0 0.02410 0.02410 0.05800CQB2 70 30 0 0.01655 0.01655 0.05850CQB3 70 30 0 0.07000 0.07000 0.09750CQB4 70 30 0 0.07550 0.07550 0.05600

Mean 0.06750

CQB1 70 35 0 0.03280 0.03280 0.14500CQB2 70 35 0 0.02435 0.02435 0.13650CQB3 70 35 0 0.07720 0.07720 0.16950CQB4 70 35 0 0.08315 0.08315 0.13250

Mean 0.14588

CQB1 70 40 0 0.03620 0.03620 0.17900CQB2 70 40 0 0.02905 0.02905 0.18350CQB3 70 40 0 0.08215 0.08215 0.21900CQB4 70 40 0 0.08865 0.08865 0.18750

Mean 0.19225

LCR = Length Comparator ReadingGauge Length (G) = 10 inChange in length, L = ((Lx - Li ) / G ) x 100

Zero day reading

After 3 days

After 7 days

After 11 days

After 14 days

F-2

Table FQ1: Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete Exposed to Alkali Solution Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i

Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)

CQB1 70 35 0 0.00530 0.00530CQB2 70 35 0 0.02635 0.02635CQB3 70 35 0 0.04140 0.04140CQB4 70 35 0 0.06485 0.06485


o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %

CQB1 70 35 0 0.00825 0.00825 0.02950CQB2 70 35 0 0.02895 0.02895 0.02600CQB3 70 35 0 0.04450 0.04450 0.03100CQB4 70 35 0 0.06735 0.06735 0.02500

Mean 0.02788

CQB1 75 40 0 0.01770 0.01770 0.12400CQB2 75 40 0 0.03690 0.03690 0.10550CQB3 75 40 0 0.05395 0.05395 0.12550CQB4 75 40 0 0.07520 0.07520 0.10350

Mean 0.11463

CQB1 75 40 0 0.02387 0.02387 0.18570CQB2 75 40 0 0.04125 0.04125 0.14900CQB3 75 40 0 0.06011 0.06011 0.18710CQB4 75 40 0 0.07858 0.07858 0.13730

Mean 0.16478

CQB1 80 45 0 0.03005 0.03005 0.24750CQB2 80 45 0 0.04560 0.04560 0.19250CQB3 80 45 0 0.06630 0.06630 0.24900CQB4 80 45 0 0.08320 0.08320 0.18350

Mean 0.21813

Zero day reading

After 3 days

After 7 days

After 11 days

After 14 days

LCR = Length Comparator Reading Gauge Length (G) = 10 in Change in Gauge Length, L = ((Lx –Li)/G)x 100) Lx - Length Comparator Reading at age X

Li - Initial Length Comparator Reading

F-3

Table FL2 (a): Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Trial Mix Of Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete Exposed to Alkali

Solution Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i


Zero Day ReadingCLB1 70 35 0 0.01250 0.01250CLB2 70 35 0 0.00160 0.00160CLB3 70 35 0 0.01100 0.01100CLB4 70 35 0 0.01235 0.01235


o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %

CLB1 70 35 0 0.01325 0.01325 0.00750CLB2 70 35 0 0.00210 0.00210 0.00500CLB3 70 35 0 0.01225 0.01225 0.01250CLB4 70 35 0 0.01315 0.01315 0.00800

Mean 0.00825

CLB1 70 30 0 0.01650 0.01650 0.04000CLB2 70 30 0 0.00625 0.00625 0.04650CLB3 70 30 0 0.01730 0.01730 0.06300CLB4 70 30 0 0.02705 0.02705 0.14700

Mean 0.07413

CLB1 70 35 0 0.05435 0.05435 0.41850CLB2 70 35 0 0.00715 0.00715 0.05550CLB3 70 35 0 0.01695 0.01695 0.05950CLB4 70 35 0 0.02020 0.02020 0.07850

Mean 0.15300

CLB1 70 40 0 0.06465 0.06465 0.52150CLB2 70 40 0 0.00760 0.00760 0.06000CLB3 70 40 0 0.01740 0.01740 0.06400CLB4 70 40 0 0.02075 0.02075 0.08400

Mean 0.18238

After 3 days

After 7 days

After 11 days

After 14 days



F-4

Table FL2: Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete Exposed to Alkali Solution


o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)Zero Day Reading

CLB1 70 35 0 0.09640 0.09640CLB2 70 35 0 0.04340 0.04340CLB3 70 35 0 0.11040 0.11040CLB4 70 35 0 0.07075 0.07075


o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %

CLB1 65 45 0 0.09760 0.09760 0.01200CLB2 65 45 0 0.04525 0.04525 0.01850CLB3 65 45 0 0.11225 0.11225 0.01850CLB4 65 45 0 0.07325 0.07325 0.02500

Mean 0.01850

CLB1 70 30 0 0.10210 0.10210 0.05700CLB2 70 30 0 0.04970 0.04970 0.06300CLB3 70 30 0 0.11790 0.11790 0.07500CLB4 70 30 0 0.07840 0.07840 0.07650

Mean 0.06788

CLB1 70 35 0 0.10425 0.10425 0.07850CLB2 70 35 0 0.05405 0.05405 0.10650CLB3 70 35 0 0.12205 0.12205 0.11650CLB4 70 35 0 0.09015 0.09015 0.19400

Mean 0.12388

CLB1 70 40 0 0.10515 0.10515 0.08750CLB2 70 40 0 0.05225 0.05600 0.12600CLB3 70 40 0 0.12105 0.12315 0.12750CLB4 70 40 0 0.08115 0.09115 0.20400

Mean 0.13625

After 3 days

After 7 days

After 11 days

After 14 days

LCR = Length Comparator Reading Gauge Length (G) = 10 in Change in Gauge Length, L = ((Lx –Li)/G)x 100) Lx - Length Comparator Reading at age X Li - Initial Length Comparator Reading

F-5

Table FG3: Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete Exposed to Alkali Solution



CGB1 65 45 0 0.05860 0.05860CGB2 65 45 0 0.09090 0.09090CGB3 65 45 0 0.05500 0.05500CGB4 65 45 0 0.08155 0.08155


o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %

CGB1 70 35 0 0.06045 0.06045 0.01850CGB2 70 35 0 0.09280 0.09280 0.01900CGB3 70 35 0 0.05690 0.05690 0.01900CGB4 70 35 0 0.08340 0.08340 0.01850

Mean 0.01875

CGB1 70 30 0 0.06330 0.06330 0.04700CGB2 70 30 0 0.09560 0.09560 0.04700CGB3 70 30 0 0.05980 0.05980 0.04800CGB4 70 30 0 0.08625 0.08625 0.04700

Mean 0.04725

CGB1 70 35 0 0.07250 0.07250 0.13900CGB2 70 35 0 0.10420 0.10420 0.13300CGB3 70 35 0 0.06845 0.06845 0.13450CGB4 70 35 0 0.09540 0.09540 0.13850

Mean 0.13625

CGB1 70 40 0 0.07615 0.07615 0.17550CGB2 70 40 0 0.10815 0.10815 0.17250CGB3 70 40 0 0.07260 0.07260 0.17600CGB4 70 40 0 0.09960 0.09960 0.18050

Mean 0.17613

After 3 days

After 7 days

After 11 days

After 14 days

LCR = Length Comparator Reading Gauge Length (G) = 10 in. Change in Length (L) = ((Lx – Li) / G) x 100 Lx - Length Comparator Reading at Age X Li - Initial Length Comparator Reading

F-6

Table FQ4 (a): Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali Solution



OQB1 70 35 0 0.09490 0.09490OQB2 70 35 0 0.10600 0.10600OQB3 70 35 0 0.01345 0.01345OQB4 70 35 0 0.00785 0.00785


o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) (%)

OQB1 70 35 0 0.09585 0.09585 0.00950OQB2 70 35 0 0.10700 0.10700 0.01000OQB3 70 35 0 0.01440 0.01440 0.00950OQB4 70 35 0 0.00875 0.00875 0.00900

Mean 0.00950

OQB1 70 30 0 0.10055 0.10055 0.05650OQB2 70 30 0 0.11260 0.11260 0.06600OQB3 70 30 0 0.01835 0.01835 0.04900OQB4 70 30 0 0.01365 0.01365 0.05800

Mean 0.05738

OQB1 70 35 0 0.10800 0.10700 0.12100OQB2 70 35 0 0.11900 0.11800 0.12000OQB3 70 35 0 0.02630 0.02530 0.11850OQB4 70 35 0 0.02125 0.02025 0.12400

Mean 0.12088

OQB1 70 40 0 0.11285 0.10985 0.14950OQB2 70 40 0 0.12400 0.12100 0.15000OQB3 70 40 0 0.03125 0.02825 0.14800OQB4 70 40 0 0.02600 0.02300 0.15150

Mean 0.14975


After 7 days

After 11 days

After 14 days

Zero day reading

After 3 days

F-7

Table FQ4: Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali Solution Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i


OQB1 80 40 0 -0.05310 -0.05310OQB2 80 40 0 -0.01165 -0.01165OQB3 80 40 0 -0.08720 -0.08720OQB4 80 40 0 -0.02040 -0.02040


o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) (%)

OQB1 70 35 0 -0.05075 -0.05075 0.02350OQB2 70 35 0 -0.00975 -0.00975 0.01900OQB3 70 35 0 -0.08525 -0.08525 0.01950OQB4 70 35 0 -0.01745 -0.01745 0.02950

Mean 0.02288

OQB1 75 40 0 -0.04320 -0.04320 0.09900OQB2 75 40 0 -0.00150 -0.00150 0.10150OQB3 75 40 0 -0.07670 -0.07670 0.10500OQB4 75 40 0 -0.00860 -0.00860 0.11800

Mean 0.10588

OQB1 75 40 0 -0.04005 -0.04005 0.13050OQB2 75 40 0 0.00290 0.00290 0.14550OQB3 75 40 0 -0.07320 -0.07320 0.14000OQB4 75 40 0 -0.00545 -0.00545 0.14950

Mean 0.14138

OQB1 80 45 0 -0.03685 -0.03685 0.16250OQB2 80 45 0 0.00985 0.00985 0.21500OQB3 80 45 0 -0.06975 -0.06975 0.17450OQB4 80 45 0 -0.00200 -0.00200 0.18400

Mean 0.18400

After 7 days

After 11 days

After 14 days

Zero day reading

After 3 days



F-8

Table FL5 (a): Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Trial Mix of Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali Solution

Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i Temp Reading (in) Specimen (in) (in)o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)

Zero Day ReadingOLB1 70 35 0 0.00375 0.00375OLB2 70 35 0 0.05385 0.05385OLB3 70 35 0 0.00730 0.00730OLB4 70 35 0 0.06345 0.06345


o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %

OLB1 70 35 0 0.00465 0.00465 0.00900OLB2 70 35 0 0.05490 0.05490 0.01050OLB3 70 35 0 0.00825 0.00825 0.00950OLB4 70 35 0 0.06435 0.06435 0.00900

Mean 0.00950

OLB1 70 30 0 0.00885 0.00885 0.05100OLB2 70 30 0 0.05530 0.05530 0.01450OLB3 70 30 0 0.01390 0.01390 0.06600OGB4 70 30 0 0.06855 0.06855 0.05100

Mean 0.04563

OLB1 70 35 0 0.01645 0.01645 0.12700OLB2 70 35 0 0.05605 0.05605 0.02200OLB3 70 35 0 0.02200 0.02200 0.14700OLB4 70 35 0 0.07565 0.07565 0.12200

Mean 0.10450

OLB1 70 40 0 0.02125 0.02125 0.17500OLB2 70 40 0 0.05650 0.05650 0.02650OLB3 70 40 0 0.02710 0.02710 0.19800OLB4 70 40 0 0.08050 0.08050 0.17050

Mean 0.14250

After 3 days

After 7 days

After 11 days

After 14 days



F-9

Table FL5: Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali Solution Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i


Zero Day ReadingOLB1 70 35 0 0.09230 0.09230OLB2 70 35 0 0.09060 0.09060OLB3 70 35 0 0.05155 0.05155OLB4 70 35 0 0.00155 0.00155


o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %

OLB1 65 45 0 0.09345 0.09345 0.01150OLB2 65 45 0 0.09335 0.09335 0.02750OLB3 65 45 0 0.05260 0.05260 0.01050OLB4 65 45 0 0.00175 0.00175 0.00200

Mean 0.01288

OLB1 70 30 0 0.09840 0.09840 0.06100OLB2 70 30 0 0.09860 0.09860 0.08000OLB3 70 30 0 0.05620 0.05620 0.04650OGB4 70 30 0 0.00495 0.00495 0.03400

Mean 0.05538

OLB1 70 35 0 0.10015 0.10015 0.07850OLB2 70 35 0 0.10905 0.10905 0.18450OLB3 70 35 0 0.05825 0.05825 0.06700OLB4 70 35 0 0.00980 0.00980 0.08250

Mean 0.10313

OLB1 70 40 0 0.10120 0.10220 0.09900OLB2 70 40 0 0.10125 0.11115 0.20550OLB3 70 40 0 0.05915 0.05915 0.07600OLB4 70 40 0 0.00735 0.01010 0.08550

Mean 0.11650

After 3 days

After 7 days

After 11 days

After 14 days



F-10

Table FG6: Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali Solution



OGB1 65 45 0 0.09275 0.09275OGB2 65 45 0 0.07945 0.07945OGB3 65 45 0 0.08845 0.08845OGB4 65 45 0 0.06415 0.06415


o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %

OGB1 70 35 0 0.09435 0.09435 0.01600OGB2 70 35 0 0.08130 0.08130 0.01850OGB3 70 35 0 0.09000 0.09000 0.01550OGB4 70 35 0 0.06545 0.06545 0.01300

Mean 0.01575

OGB1 70 30 0 0.09625 0.09625 0.03500OGB2 70 30 0 0.08330 0.08330 0.03850OGB3 70 30 0 0.09255 0.09255 0.04100OGB4 70 30 0 0.06780 0.06780 0.03650

Mean 0.03775

OGB1 70 35 0 0.10280 0.10280 0.10050OGB2 70 35 0 0.08985 0.08985 0.10400OGB3 70 35 0 0.09895 0.09895 0.10500OGB4 70 35 0 0.07435 0.07435 0.10200

Mean 0.10288

OGB1 70 40 0 0.10660 0.10660 0.13850OGB2 70 40 0 0.09315 0.09315 0.13700OGB3 70 40 0 0.10145 0.10145 0.13000OGB4 70 40 0 0.07740 0.07740 0.13250

Mean 0.13450

After 3 days

After 7 days

After 11 days

After 14 days


F-11

Table FQ7 (a): Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali

Solution



OQFB1 70 35 0 0.02535 0.02535OQFB2 70 35 0 0.09450 0.09450OQFB3 70 35 0 0.09045 0.09045OQFB4 70 35 0 0.04170 0.04170


o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) (%)

OQFB1 70 35 0 0.02635 0.02635 0.01000OQFB2 70 35 0 0.09460 0.09460 0.00100OQFB3 70 35 0 0.09120 0.09120 0.00750OQFB4 70 35 0 0.04280 0.04280 0.01100

Mean 0.00737


Mean 0.01575


Mean 0.02313


Mean 0.02913


Zero day reading

After 3 days

After 7 days

After 11 days

After 14 days

F-12

Table FQ7: Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali

Solution Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i


OQFB1 70 35 0 0.09100 0.09100OQFB2 70 35 0 0.09985 0.09985OQFB3 70 35 0 -0.02800 -0.02800OQFB4 70 35 0 -0.03750 -0.03750


o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) (%)

OQFB1 70 35 0 0.09155 0.09155 0.00550OQFB2 70 35 0 0.10025 0.10025 0.00400OQFB3 70 35 0 -0.02705 -0.02705 0.00950OQFB4 70 35 0 -0.03690 -0.03690 0.00600

Mean 0.00625


Mean 0.01238


Mean 0.02813


Mean 0.03775

Zero day reading

After 3 days

After 7 days

After 11 days

After 14 days

LCR = Length Comparator Reading Gauge Length (G) = 10 in Change in Gauge Length, L = ((Lx –Li)/G)x 100) Lx - Length Comparator Reading at age X Li - Initial Length Comparator Reading

F-13

Table FL8 (a): Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Trial Mix of Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali Solution Specimen Room Humidity Reference Bar LCR of the L i


Zero Day ReadingOLFB1 70 35 0 0.05530 0.05530OLFB2 70 35 0 0.01535 0.01535OLFB3 70 35 0 0.03505 0.03505OLFB4 70 35 0 0.05825 0.05825


o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %

OLFB1 70 35 0 0.05625 0.05625 0.00950OLFB2 70 35 0 0.01630 0.01630 0.00950OLFB3 70 35 0 0.03615 0.03615 0.01100OLFB4 70 35 0 0.05960 0.05960 0.01350

Mean 0.01088


Mean 0.02150


Mean 0.03000


Mean 0.03725

After 3 days

After 7 days

After 11 days

After 14 days



F-14

Table FL8: Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali Solution


o F RH (a) (b) (b-a)Zero Day Reading

OLFB1 70 35 0 0.10675 0.10675OLFB2 70 35 0 0.08415 0.08415OLFB3 70 35 0 0.09435 0.09435OLFB4 70 35 0 0.07950 0.07950


o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %


Mean 0.01513


Mean 0.02075


Mean 0.05925


Mean 0.06975

After 3 days

After 7 days

After 11 days

After 14 days



F-15

Table FG9: Observations of Length Change of Mortar bars for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash Exposed to Alkali Solution



OGFB1 70 45 0 0.06305 0.06305OGFB2 70 45 0 0.07410 0.07410OGFB3 70 45 0 0.04900 0.04900OGFB4 70 45 0 0.06245 0.06245


o F RH (a) (b) (b-a) %

OGFB1 70 35 0 0.06415 0.06415 0.01100OGFB2 70 35 0 0.07520 0.07520 0.01100OGFB3 70 35 0 0.05010 0.05010 0.01100OGFB4 70 35 0 0.06355 0.06355 0.01100

Mean 0.01100


Mean 0.03125


Mean 0.04013


Mean 0.04625

After 3 days

After 7 days

After 11 days

After 14 days


Appendix – G

Details of mixes done for the determination of Drying Shrinkage

Table GQ1 (a): Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate

Time(Days)

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average0 -10 -25 -15 -17 -25 -5 -25 -18 -10 -25 -30 -22

0.166 0 -15 0 -5 15 20 0 12 -5 -20 -25 -170.333 5 -5 15 5 35 50 25 37 5 -15 -15 -8

0.5 25 25 35 28 45 70 -55 20 10 -15 -15 -70.667 45 75 55 58 55 90 60 68 10 -10 -15 -50.833 55 80 60 65 75 110 85 90 15 -10 -15 -3

1 60 80 65 68 90 115 95 100 20 -10 -15 -21.333 65 85 75 75 130 120 100 117 20 -10 -10 01.666 70 85 80 78 135 120 105 120 25 0 0 8

2 105 105 90 100 145 135 120 133 25 10 15 172.333 120 105 95 107 150 140 125 138 30 20 23 242.666 125 110 100 112 150 140 130 140 35 35 30 33

3 135 115 105 118 155 150 135 147 40 50 35 424 140 125 120 128 155 155 135 148 60 65 60 625 155 140 135 143 165 160 145 157 80 80 80 806 185 180 190 185 175 180 175 177 90 90 90 907 220 225 235 227 185 220 200 202 120 130 135 128

14 265 285 275 275 235 250 225 237 185 180 190 18521 305 320 310 312 280 280 265 275 235 230 230 23228 350 355 350 352 315 310 295 307 270 270 275 27260 410 405 395 403 350 345 335 343 300 300 310 30390 465 450 445 453 385 380 375 380 330 335 345 337

Note: All deformation values are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the unit deformations in in./in.

Specimen Specimen Specimen

Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deckwith Fly Ash

G-1

Table GQ1: Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Bridge Deck Concrete with Quartzite Aggregate

Time(Days)


0.166 0 -15 0 -5 0 0 -10 -3 -10 -5 -20 -120.333 5 -5 15 5 5 20 0 8 0 0 -15 -5

0.5 25 25 35 28 15 30 20 22 5 5 -10 00.667 40 75 55 57 25 50 40 38 10 10 -5 50.833 50 80 60 63 35 80 60 58 15 15 0 10

1 55 80 65 67 75 90 80 82 20 20 5 151.333 75 85 75 78 85 100 100 95 25 25 10 201.666 95 85 80 87 95 120 105 107 30 30 15 25

2 105 105 90 100 115 125 110 117 35 30 20 282.333 125 105 95 108 120 130 115 122 40 35 25 332.666 130 110 100 113 125 135 120 127 40 35 45 40

3 135 115 105 118 130 140 125 132 45 40 50 454 145 125 120 130 135 150 130 138 50 50 55 525 150 140 135 142 140 160 140 147 60 60 65 626 175 180 190 182 150 170 160 160 80 70 85 787 200 225 235 220 185 190 180 185 120 100 125 115

14 230 285 275 263 210 220 200 210 160 170 175 16821 300 320 310 310 235 250 230 238 205 200 225 21028 320 355 350 342 285 280 260 275 260 250 255 25560 400 405 395 400 345 340 350 345 300 290 295 29590 445 450 445 447 380 375 380 378 320 340 325 328


Specimen Specimen Specimen

Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deckwith Fly Ash

G-2

Table GL2 (a): Drying Shrinkage Deformations of Trial Mix for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

Time(Days)


0.166 0 -15 15 0 15 20 0 12 -5 -15 -20 -130.333 5 -5 35 12 35 50 25 37 0 -10 -15 -80.5 25 25 45 32 45 70 55 57 5 -5 -10 -3

0.667 45 75 55 58 55 90 60 68 10 0 -5 20.833 55 80 75 70 75 110 80 88 15 5 0 7

1 60 85 90 78 90 115 90 98 20 10 5 121.333 75 90 130 98 120 115 95 110 25 10 10 151.666 100 95 135 110 140 115 105 120 30 15 15 20

2 105 100 145 117 145 135 115 132 35 20 15 232.333 115 105 150 123 150 140 125 138 35 25 20 272.666 125 110 150 128 150 145 130 142 40 30 25 32

3 135 115 155 135 155 150 130 145 45 30 30 354 145 125 155 142 160 165 140 155 55 50 35 475 150 135 165 150 165 180 140 162 75 75 50 676 175 175 175 175 170 180 170 173 85 80 70 787 215 205 185 202 180 200 200 193 115 130 100 115

14 255 265 235 252 225 240 225 230 165 170 180 17221 300 315 280 298 275 270 255 267 225 215 220 22028 345 345 315 335 310 300 285 298 265 245 270 26060 400 395 350 382 340 335 325 333 295 295 300 297


with Fly AshSpecimen Specimen Specimen

Control Limestone Bridge Deck Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck

G-3

Table GL2: Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Bridge Deck Concrete with Limestone Aggregate

Time(Days)

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average0 -5 -15 -10 -10 -20 -20 0 -13 -5 -15 -25 -15

0.166 0 -10 0 -3 10 10 15 12 -5 -15 -25 -150.333 5 0 10 5 30 30 40 33 0 -10 -20 -100.5 20 20 30 23 40 40 60 47 5 -10 -15 -7

0.667 40 70 50 53 50 50 80 60 5 -10 -15 -70.833 45 70 55 57 65 65 100 77 10 -5 -10 -2

1 50 75 55 60 80 80 110 90 15 -5 -5 21.333 60 80 70 70 125 125 110 120 15 0 -5 31.666 65 80 75 73 130 130 115 125 20 5 0 8

2 95 95 80 90 135 135 125 132 25 5 10 132.333 110 100 80 97 140 140 130 137 25 10 20 182.666 120 100 90 103 145 145 135 142 30 30 25 28

3 125 105 100 110 145 145 140 143 30 40 30 334 130 120 110 120 150 150 150 150 50 60 50 535 150 130 130 137 160 160 150 157 75 70 70 726 180 170 180 177 170 170 170 170 80 85 80 827 210 220 230 220 180 180 210 190 110 120 130 120

14 260 275 270 268 225 225 240 230 180 170 180 17721 300 310 300 303 270 270 270 270 230 220 220 22328 340 350 340 343 310 310 300 307 260 265 270 26560 400 400 380 393 340 340 330 337 290 290 300 293



Control Limestone Bridge Deck Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck

G-4

Table GG3: Drying Shrinkage Deformations for Bridge Deck Concrete with Granite Aggregate

Time(Days) without Fly Ash


0.166 0 -15 0 -5 15 20 0 12 -5 -20 -30 -180.333 5 -5 15 5 35 50 20 35 5 -15 -25 -120.5 25 25 30 27 45 70 50 55 10 -15 -20 -8

0.667 45 75 50 57 55 90 55 67 10 -10 -15 -50.833 55 80 60 65 75 100 80 85 15 -10 -15 -3

1 60 85 70 72 90 110 90 97 20 -10 -10 01.333 65 90 80 78 130 115 100 115 20 -10 -10 01.666 70 95 85 83 135 120 105 120 25 -10 -10 2

2 105 100 90 98 140 130 110 127 25 0 0 82.333 110 105 95 103 145 135 115 132 30 10 10 172.666 125 110 100 112 150 140 120 137 35 30 25 30

3 135 115 105 118 155 145 130 143 40 50 30 404 145 125 115 128 160 150 135 148 60 65 45 575 155 140 130 142 165 155 140 153 80 75 75 776 195 180 180 185 170 170 170 170 90 80 85 857 210 225 220 218 185 215 200 200 120 125 130 12514 270 285 260 272 225 245 215 228 175 170 180 17521 300 315 300 305 280 275 255 270 225 220 220 22228 340 345 340 342 310 305 285 300 255 260 270 26260 400 395 395 397 340 340 325 335 290 290 300 293


Control Granite Bridge Deck Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Optimum Granite Bridge Deck

G-5

H-1

Appendix – H

Details of mixes done for the determination of Creep and Shrinkage

H-1

Table HQ1 (a): Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete

Timeunder Total Unit Unit Specific

Sustained No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)

in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]0.00 170 150 130 150 0 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 230 250 280 253 0 0 0 0 103 0.130.33 305 315 315 312 0 0 0 0 162 0.200.50 345 340 365 350 0 0 0 0 200 0.250.67 400 405 375 393 0 5 10 5 238 0.280.83 405 410 435 417 10 15 10 11 256 0.321.00 420 435 460 438 20 20 20 20 268 0.341.33 445 465 480 463 20 20 25 23 290 0.361.67 475 485 500 487 20 25 30 25 312 0.392.00 510 500 525 512 30 35 40 35 327 0.413.00 540 535 550 542 45 50 50 49 343 0.434.00 565 560 580 568 60 60 65 62 356 0.455.00 570 590 620 598 70 75 70 72 376 0.476.00 590 650 640 627 85 90 100 91 386 0.4814.00 680 675 680 678 115 120 130 123 405 0.5121.00 745 735 715 732 170 170 175 171 411 0.5128.00 820 825 830 825 235 250 260 249 426 0.5360.00 890 895 905 897 270 300 290 288 459 0.58

Strains for control specimensShrinkage

Note: Values in Columns [2] through [11] are to be multiplied by 10-6 to get the strains in in./in.

Strains for specimens subjected to sustained load

H-2

Table HQ1: Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete

T im eunder Total Unit Unit Specific

Sustained No. 1 No. 2 N o. 3 Average No. 1 N o. 2 No. 3 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)

in D ays[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]0.00 150 160 170 160 0 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 240 280 290 270 0 0 0 0 110 0.140.33 300 320 335 318 0 0 0 0 158 0.200.50 345 395 370 370 0 0 0 0 210 0.260.67 400 420 405 408 0 5 10 5 243 0.300.83 405 445 415 422 5 15 15 12 250 0.311.00 440 470 440 450 15 25 25 22 268 0.341.33 470 485 455 470 15 25 30 23 287 0.361.67 500 495 495 497 20 30 30 27 310 0.392.00 515 525 515 518 35 35 35 35 323 0.403.00 540 545 565 550 45 50 50 48 342 0.434.00 565 585 580 577 55 65 60 60 357 0.455.00 605 605 600 603 65 70 70 68 375 0.476.00 640 620 635 632 85 95 90 90 382 0.48

14.00 690 675 685 683 120 115 120 118 405 0.5121.00 735 740 745 740 165 165 170 167 413 0.5228.00 810 850 830 830 220 260 240 240 430 0.5460.00 890 915 910 905 280 280 280 280 465 0.58

Strains for control specim ensShrinkage

N ote: Values in Colum ns [2] through [11] are to be m ultip lied by 10-6 to get the stra ins in in./in.

S tra ins for specim ens subjected to sustained load

H-3

Table HL2: Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]0.00 160 155 165 160 0 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 265 265 265 265 0 0 0 0 105 0.130.33 330 335 355 340 0 0 0 0 180 0.230.50 370 365 375 370 0 0 0 0 210 0.260.67 425 430 430 428 10 10 0 7 262 0.330.83 425 435 450 437 15 10 10 12 265 0.331.00 440 455 470 455 20 20 20 20 275 0.351.33 480 485 500 488 25 25 20 23 305 0.381.67 495 500 520 505 30 30 25 28 317 0.402.00 510 525 530 522 40 40 40 40 322 0.403.00 550 555 555 553 50 50 55 52 342 0.434.00 570 575 585 577 65 65 60 63 353 0.445.00 600 595 600 598 80 70 70 73 365 0.466.00 655 660 665 660 100 100 105 102 398 0.5214.00 690 710 725 708 125 130 125 127 422 0.5321.00 750 760 770 760 175 175 165 172 428 0.5428.00 850 865 880 865 265 260 270 265 440 0.5560.00 925 915 940 927 315 290 300 302 465 0.59




H-4

Table HG3: Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]0.00 150 150 150 150 0 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 250 260 255 255 0 0 0 0 105 0.130.33 320 315 315 317 0 0 0 0 167 0.210.50 350 355 365 357 0 0 0 0 207 0.260.67 400 410 410 407 10 5 0 5 252 0.310.83 425 420 430 425 15 10 10 12 263 0.331.00 440 450 450 447 20 20 20 20 277 0.341.33 460 465 470 465 25 25 20 23 292 0.361.67 495 490 500 495 30 25 25 27 318 0.392.00 510 520 520 517 35 40 40 38 328 0.413.00 550 540 545 545 50 50 50 50 345 0.434.00 570 575 575 573 60 65 60 62 362 0.455.00 600 595 595 597 80 65 75 73 373 0.466.00 630 650 650 643 100 100 105 102 392 0.4814.00 690 700 710 700 125 130 125 127 423 0.5221.00 750 760 740 750 175 175 165 172 428 0.5328.00 850 850 840 847 250 260 270 260 437 0.5460.00 930 920 910 920 280 290 300 290 480 0.59




H-5

Table HQ4 (a): Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]0.00 150 160 170 160 0 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 200 225 220 215 0 0 0 0 55 0.070.33 260 265 260 262 0 0 0 0 102 0.130.50 290 310 305 302 0 0 0 0 142 0.180.67 330 360 345 345 0 0 0 0 185 0.230.83 360 365 370 365 5 5 5 5 200 0.251.00 380 400 385 388 5 5 5 5 223 0.281.33 400 420 425 415 5 5 5 5 250 0.311.67 440 440 445 442 5 10 10 8 274 0.342.00 450 470 470 463 10 15 20 15 288 0.363.00 480 490 495 488 20 25 30 25 303 0.384.00 500 510 510 507 30 50 40 40 307 0.385.00 515 530 535 527 40 50 45 45 322 0.406.00 530 540 550 540 50 60 70 60 320 0.40

14.00 560 560 575 565 70 110 90 90 315 0.4221.00 610 620 640 623 130 135 140 135 328 0.4428.00 680 685 690 685 175 190 200 188 337 0.4560.00 745 755 760 753 215 230 230 225 368 0.46




H-6

Table HQ4 : Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with out Fly Ash



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]

0.00 170 175 165 170 0 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 215 225 230 223 0 0 0 0 53 0.070.33 270 270 275 272 0 0 0 0 102 0.130.50 310 300 300 303 0 0 0 0 133 0.170.67 350 345 360 352 0 0 0 0 182 0.230.83 365 370 375 370 5 5 5 5 195 0.241.00 385 390 385 387 5 5 5 5 212 0.261.33 415 425 420 420 5 5 5 5 245 0.311.67 445 440 455 447 5 10 5 7 270 0.342.00 465 470 465 467 15 20 10 15 282 0.353.00 485 500 500 495 20 20 20 20 305 0.384.00 505 515 515 512 30 35 35 33 308 0.395.00 525 535 540 533 40 45 40 42 322 0.406.00 540 545 545 543 50 50 45 48 325 0.41

14.00 565 565 580 570 70 75 75 73 327 0.4121.00 630 630 630 630 120 140 130 130 330 0.4128.00 700 700 700 700 170 175 195 180 350 0.4460.00 760 730 790 760 215 210 210 212 378 0.47




H-7

Table HL5: Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]0.00 155 165 175 165 0 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 215 220 230 222 0 0 0 0 57 0.070.33 265 270 265 267 0 0 0 0 102 0.130.50 290 320 330 313 0 0 0 0 148 0.180.67 345 360 360 355 5 0 10 5 185 0.230.83 365 370 380 372 5 0 10 5 202 0.251.00 395 400 395 397 5 0 10 5 227 0.291.33 420 425 430 425 5 0 10 5 255 0.321.67 450 460 465 458 5 10 15 10 283 0.362.00 470 480 480 477 5 15 15 12 300 0.383.00 490 490 510 497 15 25 35 25 307 0.394.00 515 520 525 520 40 40 45 42 313 0.385.00 530 530 540 533 45 50 55 50 318 0.406.00 550 550 560 553 60 65 75 67 322 0.4014.00 585 590 600 592 80 100 110 97 330 0.3921.00 630 640 640 637 120 140 140 133 338 0.4328.00 700 700 710 703 180 190 205 192 347 0.4360.00 770 780 780 777 225 240 235 233 378 0.48




H-8

Table HG6: Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]0.00 150 155 155 153 0 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 215 220 220 218 0 0 0 0 65 0.080.33 270 265 260 265 0 0 0 0 112 0.140.50 300 310 310 307 0 0 0 0 153 0.190.67 350 360 340 350 0 5 10 5 192 0.240.83 365 365 370 367 5 0 10 5 208 0.261.00 400 390 390 393 5 5 10 7 233 0.291.33 425 420 420 422 5 5 10 7 262 0.321.67 460 450 465 458 10 10 10 10 295 0.372.00 470 480 480 477 10 10 15 12 312 0.393.00 490 490 490 490 15 25 35 25 312 0.394.00 500 520 505 508 40 40 45 42 313 0.395.00 520 540 530 530 50 40 55 48 328 0.416.00 540 540 545 542 65 60 65 63 325 0.40

14.00 565 565 560 563 100 90 90 93 317 0.3921.00 610 640 625 625 140 135 140 138 333 0.4128.00 680 690 710 693 190 190 185 188 352 0.4460.00 770 760 770 767 230 230 220 227 387 0.48




H-9

Table HQ7 (a): Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash


Sustained No. 1 No. 2 Average No. 1 No. 2 Average Creep Strain CreepLoad (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in.) (in./in./psi)

in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]0.00 150 170 160 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 200 230 215 0 0 0 55 0.070.33 255 270 263 0 0 0 103 0.130.50 295 310 303 0 0 0 143 0.180.67 340 350 345 0 0 0 185 0.230.83 350 380 365 5 5 5 200 0.251.00 375 395 385 5 5 5 220 0.281.33 405 415 410 5 5 5 245 0.311.67 435 445 440 5 5 8 272 0.342.00 455 465 460 10 10 15 285 0.363.00 480 490 485 20 20 25 300 0.374.00 500 505 503 30 30 40 303 0.385.00 505 510 508 40 40 45 303 0.386.00 515 530 523 50 50 60 303 0.38

14.00 545 550 548 80 80 90 298 0.3721.00 600 610 605 110 110 125 320 0.4028.00 650 665 658 150 150 160 338 0.4260.00 695 710 703 180 180 200 343 0.43

to sustained load


Strains for control specimensStrains for specimens subjected Shrinkage

H-10

Table HQ7: Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]

0.00 160 180 170 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 205 210 208 0 0 0 38 0.050.33 250 255 253 0 0 0 83 0.100.50 300 320 310 0 0 0 140 0.180.67 340 360 350 0 0 0 180 0.230.83 365 370 368 5 5 5 193 0.241.00 390 395 393 5 5 5 218 0.271.33 400 420 410 5 5 5 235 0.291.67 450 450 450 5 5 5 275 0.342.00 460 480 470 10 10 10 290 0.363.00 470 490 480 20 20 20 290 0.364.00 495 500 498 30 30 30 298 0.375.00 510 505 508 40 40 40 298 0.376.00 520 515 518 40 40 40 308 0.3814.00 550 555 553 60 70 65 318 0.4021.00 595 590 593 90 110 100 323 0.4028.00 665 670 668 165 145 155 343 0.4360.00 710 710 710 200 195 198 343 0.43

to sustained load



H-11

Table HL8: Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]0.00 160 150 155 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 210 210 210 0 0 0 55 0.080.33 255 255 255 0 0 0 100 0.140.50 290 310 300 0 0 0 145 0.200.67 330 340 335 0 0 0 180 0.250.83 355 365 360 0 10 5 200 0.261.00 370 400 385 5 10 8 223 0.291.33 410 415 413 5 10 8 250 0.321.67 435 450 443 10 10 10 278 0.352.00 450 470 460 15 20 18 288 0.363.00 480 490 485 20 35 28 303 0.394.00 500 505 503 35 50 43 305 0.405.00 510 510 510 40 50 45 310 0.416.00 525 540 533 60 70 65 313 0.39

14.00 560 575 568 90 95 93 320 0.4021.00 605 620 613 120 140 130 328 0.4128.00 650 660 655 160 175 168 333 0.4460.00 715 725 720 205 210 208 358 0.45

to sustained load



H-12

Table HG9: Unit Creep Strains and Unit Shrinkage for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]0.00 150 160 155 0 0 0 0 0.000.17 210 220 215 0 0 0 60 0.070.33 250 275 263 0 0 0 108 0.130.50 290 325 308 0 0 0 153 0.190.67 350 350 350 0 0 0 195 0.240.83 350 385 368 5 5 5 208 0.261.00 380 395 388 5 5 5 228 0.281.33 415 420 418 5 5 5 258 0.321.67 430 450 440 10 10 10 275 0.342.00 460 460 460 15 15 15 290 0.363.00 490 485 488 20 30 25 308 0.384.00 515 505 510 40 40 40 315 0.395.00 525 515 520 40 50 45 320 0.406.00 535 535 535 65 60 63 318 0.3914.00 570 555 563 95 90 93 315 0.3921.00 620 600 610 120 135 128 328 0.4128.00 670 665 668 160 165 163 350 0.4360.00 720 710 715 200 205 203 358 0.44

to sustained load



H-13

Table HQ10 (a): Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]

60.00 760 775 785 773 280 310 275 288 335 0.4260.17 760 770 785 772 280 310 275 288 334 0.4260.33 760 770 785 771 280 310 275 288 333 0.4260.50 760 775 785 773 280 310 280 290 333 0.4260.67 760 775 785 773 285 310 280 292 331 0.4160.83 755 765 775 765 285 315 280 294 321 0.4061.00 755 765 775 765 285 315 290 297 318 0.4061.33 755 765 760 762 285 315 290 297 315 0.3961.67 755 765 760 762 290 315 290 299 313 0.3962.00 750 765 760 759 290 315 290 299 310 0.3963.00 745 760 755 753 290 320 290 301 302 0.3864.00 745 755 750 750 290 320 290 301 299 0.3765.00 745 755 745 749 295 320 295 303 296 0.3766.00 745 755 745 749 295 320 295 303 296 0.3767.00 745 755 745 749 300 325 300 308 291 0.3668.00 740 750 730 745 300 330 300 309 286 0.3669.00 740 750 730 745 300 330 305 312 283 0.3570.00 740 750 730 745 305 330 305 313 282 0.35




H-14

Table HQ10: Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]

60.00 770 765 780 772 280 280 280 280 332 0.4160.17 770 765 780 772 280 285 285 283 328 0.4160.33 770 765 780 772 280 285 285 283 328 0.4160.50 770 765 775 770 280 285 290 285 325 0.4160.67 765 765 775 768 280 295 290 288 320 0.4060.83 765 760 775 767 285 295 290 290 317 0.4061.00 765 760 775 767 285 295 295 292 315 0.3961.33 765 760 770 765 285 295 295 292 313 0.3961.67 760 760 770 763 290 295 295 293 310 0.3962.00 760 755 770 762 290 300 295 295 307 0.3863.00 760 755 770 762 295 300 300 298 303 0.3864.00 760 755 765 760 295 300 300 298 302 0.3865.00 760 755 765 760 295 310 300 302 298 0.3766.00 755 755 750 753 295 310 305 303 290 0.3667.00 755 755 750 753 300 310 305 305 288 0.3668.00 755 750 740 748 300 315 310 308 280 0.3569.00 755 750 740 748 300 315 310 308 280 0.3570.00 755 750 740 748 300 320 315 312 277 0.35




H-15

Table HL11: Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Control Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]

60.00 790 800 810 800 315 290 300 302 338 0.4260.17 790 800 800 797 315 290 300 302 335 0.4160.33 790 795 800 795 315 290 300 302 333 0.4160.50 785 795 800 793 315 290 300 302 332 0.4160.67 785 795 800 793 315 290 300 302 332 0.4160.83 785 790 800 792 315 295 300 303 328 0.4161.00 785 790 795 790 315 295 300 303 327 0.4061.33 775 790 795 787 320 295 305 307 320 0.4061.67 775 780 795 783 320 300 310 310 313 0.3962.00 770 780 790 780 325 300 310 312 308 0.3863.00 770 780 790 780 325 300 310 312 308 0.3864.00 770 780 790 780 325 300 310 312 308 0.3865.00 760 780 790 777 325 300 310 312 305 0.3866.00 760 780 790 777 325 300 310 312 305 0.3867.00 760 775 785 773 330 305 315 317 297 0.3768.00 760 775 780 772 330 305 315 317 295 0.3769.00 760 770 780 770 330 305 325 320 290 0.3670.00 755 770 780 768 335 310 330 325 283 0.35




H-16

Table HG12: Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]

60.00 780 790 800 790 280 290 300 290 350 0.4360.17 780 790 800 790 280 290 300 290 350 0.4360.33 770 790 790 783 280 290 300 290 343 0.4260.50 770 780 790 780 280 290 300 290 340 0.4260.67 760 770 790 773 280 290 300 290 333 0.4160.83 760 770 790 773 285 290 305 293 330 0.4161.00 755 765 785 768 285 295 305 295 323 0.4061.33 755 765 780 767 285 295 305 295 322 0.4061.67 750 765 780 765 285 295 310 297 318 0.3962.00 750 765 780 765 285 295 310 297 318 0.3963.00 750 760 775 762 285 300 310 298 313 0.3964.00 750 760 775 762 290 300 310 300 312 0.3965.00 745 760 775 760 290 300 315 302 308 0.3866.00 745 755 775 758 295 300 315 303 305 0.3867.00 745 755 775 758 295 305 320 307 302 0.3768.00 740 755 770 755 295 305 320 307 298 0.3769.00 740 755 770 755 300 305 320 308 297 0.3770.00 740 755 770 755 300 310 320 310 295 0.37




H-17

Table HQ13 (a): Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]

60.00 640 610 600 617 220 225 230 225 232 0.2960.17 640 610 600 617 220 225 230 225 232 0.2960.33 640 610 600 617 220 225 230 226 231 0.2960.50 640 610 595 616 225 225 230 228 228 0.2960.67 640 610 595 616 225 225 230 228 228 0.2960.83 635 605 595 612 225 225 230 228 224 0.2861.00 635 605 595 612 225 230 230 229 223 0.2861.33 635 605 595 612 225 230 235 231 221 0.2861.67 635 605 590 610 225 230 235 231 219 0.2762.00 630 600 580 603 225 230 235 231 212 0.2763.00 625 590 570 595 225 230 235 232 203 0.2564.00 610 585 560 585 230 230 240 234 191 0.2465.00 600 580 555 579 230 235 240 236 183 0.2366.00 600 580 550 578 230 235 240 236 182 0.2367.00 600 580 550 578 235 235 240 237 181 0.2368.00 600 580 550 578 235 235 240 237 181 0.2369.00 600 580 550 578 235 235 240 237 181 0.2370.00 600 580 550 578 235 235 240 237 181 0.23




H-18

Table HQ13: Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]

60.00 615 595 645 618 215 210 210 212 237 0.3060.17 615 595 645 618 220 210 210 213 235 0.2960.33 615 595 645 618 220 210 210 213 235 0.2960.50 615 595 645 618 220 210 210 213 235 0.2960.67 615 595 645 618 225 210 215 217 232 0.2960.83 615 595 645 618 225 215 215 218 230 0.2961.00 610 590 645 615 225 215 215 218 227 0.2861.33 610 590 640 613 225 215 215 218 225 0.2861.67 610 590 640 613 225 215 215 218 225 0.2862.00 610 590 640 613 225 215 215 218 225 0.2863.00 610 585 640 612 225 215 220 220 222 0.2864.00 600 585 640 608 225 220 220 222 217 0.2765.00 590 585 635 603 230 220 220 223 210 0.2666.00 585 585 635 602 230 220 220 223 208 0.2667.00 585 580 635 600 230 220 220 223 207 0.2668.00 580 575 635 597 230 225 225 227 200 0.2569.00 580 575 630 595 230 225 225 227 198 0.2570.00 575 575 630 593 235 230 235 233 190 0.24




H-19

Table HL14: Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]

60.00 625 645 650 640 225 240 235 233 242 0.3060.17 625 645 650 640 225 240 235 233 242 0.3060.33 620 645 645 637 225 240 235 233 238 0.2960.50 620 645 645 637 225 245 235 235 237 0.2960.67 620 645 645 637 225 245 240 237 235 0.2960.83 620 640 645 635 225 245 240 237 233 0.2961.00 620 640 645 635 230 245 240 238 232 0.2961.33 615 640 640 632 230 245 240 238 228 0.2861.67 615 640 640 632 230 245 240 238 228 0.2862.00 615 635 640 630 230 245 240 238 227 0.2863.00 615 635 635 628 235 250 245 243 220 0.2764.00 615 635 635 628 235 250 245 243 220 0.2765.00 610 630 635 625 235 250 245 243 217 0.2766.00 610 630 635 625 235 250 245 243 217 0.2767.00 610 630 635 625 235 250 250 245 215 0.2768.00 605 625 630 620 235 250 250 245 210 0.2669.00 605 620 625 617 240 255 255 250 202 0.2570.00 600 610 615 608 240 260 255 252 192 0.24




H-20

Table HG15: Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]

60.00 620 620 615 618 230 230 220 227 239 0.3060.17 620 620 610 617 230 230 220 227 237 0.2960.33 620 615 610 615 230 230 220 227 235 0.2960.50 615 615 610 613 230 235 220 228 232 0.2960.67 615 615 610 613 230 235 220 228 232 0.2960.83 610 615 610 612 230 235 220 228 230 0.2961.00 610 615 610 612 235 235 220 230 229 0.2861.33 610 610 600 607 235 235 225 232 222 0.2761.67 610 610 600 607 235 235 225 232 222 0.2762.00 605 605 600 603 235 235 225 232 219 0.2763.00 605 605 595 602 235 235 225 232 217 0.2764.00 600 605 590 598 235 240 225 233 212 0.2665.00 600 600 590 597 235 240 225 233 210 0.2666.00 600 600 580 593 235 240 225 233 207 0.2667.00 600 590 570 587 235 240 230 235 199 0.2568.00 595 590 560 582 235 240 235 237 192 0.2469.00 595 590 560 582 235 240 235 237 192 0.2470.00 595 585 560 580 235 240 235 237 190 0.24




H-21

Table HQ16 (a): Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]

60.00 560 570 565 195 200 198 207 0.2660.17 560 565 562 195 200 198 204 0.2660.33 560 565 562 200 200 200 202 0.2560.50 555 560 557 200 200 200 197 0.2560.67 555 560 557 200 200 200 197 0.2560.83 555 555 555 200 210 204 191 0.2461.00 555 550 553 200 210 204 189 0.2461.33 550 550 550 200 210 204 186 0.2361.67 550 540 545 200 210 205 180 0.2362.00 550 540 545 210 210 209 176 0.2263.00 550 540 545 210 210 210 175 0.2264.00 545 540 543 210 215 212 171 0.2165.00 545 540 543 210 215 212 171 0.2166.00 545 540 543 215 215 215 167 0.2167.00 540 540 540 215 215 215 164 0.2168.00 535 535 535 215 220 217 158 0.2069.00 535 535 535 215 220 217 158 0.2070.00 535 535 535 215 220 217 158 0.20




H-22

Table HQ16: Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]

60.00 575 560 568 200 195 198 200 0.2560.17 575 560 568 200 195 198 200 0.2560.33 575 560 568 200 195 198 200 0.2560.50 575 555 565 200 195 198 198 0.2560.67 575 555 565 200 195 198 198 0.2560.83 570 555 563 200 195 198 195 0.2461.00 570 555 563 205 200 203 190 0.2461.33 570 550 560 205 200 203 188 0.2361.67 570 550 560 205 200 203 188 0.2362.00 565 550 558 205 200 203 185 0.2363.00 565 545 555 205 205 205 180 0.2364.00 560 545 553 205 205 205 178 0.2265.00 560 545 553 205 205 205 178 0.2266.00 555 540 548 210 210 210 168 0.2167.00 555 535 545 210 210 210 165 0.2168.00 550 535 543 210 210 210 163 0.2069.00 550 530 540 210 215 213 158 0.2070.00 545 530 538 210 215 213 155 0.19




H-23

Table HL17: Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]

60.00 575 585 580 205 210 208 218 0.2760.17 575 585 580 205 210 208 218 0.2760.33 575 580 578 205 210 208 215 0.2760.50 575 580 578 205 210 208 215 0.2760.67 570 580 575 205 210 208 213 0.2660.83 570 580 575 205 210 208 213 0.2661.00 570 575 573 205 215 210 208 0.2661.33 565 575 570 210 215 213 203 0.2561.67 560 575 568 210 215 213 200 0.2562.00 560 575 568 210 215 213 200 0.2563.00 560 575 568 215 215 215 198 0.2464.00 560 575 568 215 220 218 195 0.2465.00 560 570 565 215 220 218 193 0.2466.00 555 570 563 215 220 218 190 0.2467.00 550 565 558 215 220 218 185 0.2368.00 550 565 558 220 225 223 180 0.2269.00 550 565 558 220 225 223 180 0.2270.00 540 555 548 220 225 223 170 0.21

to sustained load



H-24

Table HG18: Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash



in Days[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ]

60.00 580 560 570 200 205 203 213 0.2660.17 580 560 570 200 205 203 213 0.2660.33 580 560 570 200 210 205 210 0.2660.50 580 560 570 200 210 205 210 0.2660.67 575 555 565 200 210 205 205 0.2560.83 575 555 565 200 210 205 205 0.2561.00 575 550 563 205 210 208 200 0.2561.33 570 550 560 205 210 208 198 0.2461.67 570 545 558 205 215 210 193 0.2462.00 570 540 555 205 215 210 190 0.2463.00 570 540 555 210 215 213 188 0.2364.00 565 530 548 210 220 215 178 0.2265.00 565 530 548 210 220 215 178 0.2266.00 565 525 545 210 220 215 175 0.2267.00 560 525 543 210 220 215 173 0.2168.00 560 520 540 215 220 218 168 0.2169.00 560 520 540 215 220 218 168 0.2170.00 550 510 530 215 225 220 168 0.21

to sustained load



H-25

0100200300400500600700800900

10001100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7

Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit S

trai

n,(1

0-6 in

/in)

1200

0

CQB Total Unit StrainCQB Unit Shrinkage Strain

Age at loading : 28 daysStress applied : 800 psiCompressive Strength : 5170 psiStress - Strength Ratio : 15.47%

Unit Elastic Strain

Unit Shrinkage

Unit Creep Strain

Figure HQ1 (a): Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit s

trai

n (1

0^-6

, in/

in)

90

CQB Total Unit StrainCQB Shrinkage strain

Age at loading: 28 daysStress Applied: 800 psi

Compressive Strength: 5211 psiStress-strength ratio : 15.35 %

Unit Elastic StrainUnit Shrinkage Strain

Unit Creep Strain

Figure HQ1: Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Control Quartzite

Bridge Deck Concrete

H-26

Figure HL2: Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Control Limestone

Bridge Deck Concrete

0

100

200

300

400500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit S

trai

n,(1

0-6 in

/in)

CGB Total Unit Strain

CGB Unit Shrinkage Strain

Age at loading : 28 daysStress applied : 808 psi

Compressive Strength : 5001 psiStress - Strength Ratio : 16.16 %

Unit Elastic Strain

Unit Creep Strain

Unit Shrinkage Strain

Figure HG3: Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Control Granite Bridge Deck Concrete

H-27

0100200300400500600700800900

100011001200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7

Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit S

trai

n, (1

0-6 in

/ in

)

0

OQB Total Unit StrainOQB Unit Shrinkage Strain

Age at loading : 28 daysStress Applied : 800 psiCompressive Strength : 5424 psiStress Strength Ratio : 14.75 %

Unit Elastic Strain Unit Shrinkage Strain

Unit Creep Strain

Figure HQ4 (a): Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash

0100200300400500600700800900

100011001200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit s

trai

n (1

0^-6

, in/

in)

OQB Total StrainOQB Shrinkage Strain

Unit Elastic Strain Unit Shrinkage Strain

Unit Creep StrainAge at loading: 28 daysStress Applied : 800 psi

Compressive strength: 5364 psiStress-Strength ratio: 14.91 %

Figure HQ4: Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Optimum Quartzite

Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash

H-28

Figure HL5: Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Optimum Limestone

Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit S

trai

n,(1

0-6 in

/in)

OGB Total Unit Strain

OGB Unit Shrinkage Strain



Unit Elastic Strain

Unit Creep Strain


Figure HG6: Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash

H-29

0100200300400500600700800900

10001100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7

Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit S

trai

n ( 1

0-6 in

/in)

1200

0

OQFB Total Unit StrainOQFB Unit Shrinkage Strain

Age at loading : 28 daysStress Applied : 800 psiCompressive Strength : 6278 psiStress Strength Ratio : 12.74 %


Unit Creep Strain

Figure HQ7 (a): Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash

0100200300400500600700800900

100011001200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit s

trai

n (1

0^-6

, in/

in)

90

OQFB Total Unit strainOQFB Shrinkage Strain

Age at loading: 28 daysStress Applied: 800 psi

Compressive strength:6473 psiStress-Strength ratio: 12.35 %


Unit Creep Strain

Figure HQ7: Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash

H-30

Figure HL8: Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit S

trai

n,(1

0-6 in

/in)

OGFB Total Unit StrainOGFB Unit Shrinkage Strain



Unit Elastic Strain

Unit Creep Strain


Figure HG9: Total Unit Strain and Unit Shrinkage Strain for Optimum Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash

H-31

0

100

200

300

400

500

56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72

Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit C

reep

Str

ain,

10-6

in/in

Age at Unloading : 60 days

Creep Recovery for 10 days

Each data point is average of three specimens

Unit Elastic Recovery

Unit Creep Recovery

Unit Creep Strain

Figure HQ10 (a): Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete

0

100

200

300

400

500

58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72

Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit C

reep

Str

ain(

10^-

6, in

/in)

CQB Total Unit creep strain

Unit Creep Strain


Unit Creep Recovery

Age at Unloading 60 daysCreep Recovery for 10 daysEach data is average of three points

Figure HQ10: Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Control Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete

H-32

Figure HL11: Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Control

Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete

0

100

200

300

400

500

56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit C

reep

Str

ain,

10-6

in/in Unit Elastic Recovery

Unit CreepRecovery

Unit Creep Strain Age At Unloading = 60 DaysCreep Recovery for 10 Days

Each Data Point is Average ofThree Specimens

Figure HG12: Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Control

Granite Bridge Deck Concrete

H-33

0

100

200

300

400

500

56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72

Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit C

reep

Str

ain,

10-6

in/in





Unit Creep Recovery

Unit Creep Strain

Figure HQ13 (a): Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash

0

100

200

300

400

500

58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72

Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit C

reep

Str

ain(

10^-

6, in

/in)

OQB Total Unit creep strain

Unit Creep Strain


Unit Creep Recovery

Age at Unloading 60 daysCreep Recovery for 10 daysEach data is average of three points

Figure HQ13: Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash

H-34

Figure HL14: Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash

0

100

200

300

400

500

56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit C

reep

Str

ain,

10-6

in/in


Unit CreepRecovery

Unit Creep StrainAge At Unloading = 60 DaysCreep Recovery for 10 Days

Each Data Point is Average ofThree Specimens

Figure HG15: Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum

Granite Bridge Deck Concrete without Fly Ash

H-35

0

100

200

300

400

500

56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72

Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit C

reep

Str

ain,

10-6

in/in





Unit Creep Recovery

Unit Creep Strain

Figure HQ15 (a): Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash

0

100

200

300

400

500

58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72

Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit C

reep

Str

ain(

10^-

6, in

/in)

OQFB Total Unit creep strain

Unit Creep Strain


Unit Creep RecoveryAge at Unloading 60 days

Creep Recovery for 10 daysEach data is average of three points

Figure HQ15: Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum Quartzite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash

H-36

Figure HL16: Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum

Limestone Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash

0

100

200

300

400

500

56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72Time in Days

Tot

al U

nit C

reep

Str

ain,

10-6

in/in


Unit CreepRecoveryUnit Creep Strain

Age At Unloading = 60 DaysCreep Recovery for 10 Days

Each Data Point is Average ofTwo Specimens

Figure HG17: Unit Elastic and Unit Creep Recovery on Unloading for Optimum

Granite Bridge Deck Concrete with Fly Ash

Appendix – I

Details of mixes done for the determination of Freeze Thaw

I-1

Table IQ1 (a): Pulse Time Recorded for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing

Mix Specimen ID Curing

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CQB F-T 60.9 61.5 62.2 62.4 62.7 63.1 63.5 63.8 64.1 64.3 64.7CQB Std 64.3 64.0 63.7 63.6 63.3 62.6 62.2 61.8 61.5 61.0 60.8

OQB F-T 60.2 60.6 61.5 61.6 62.0 62.4 63.0 63.3 63.5 63.7 64.1OQB Std 63.5 63.0 62.8 62.2 62.0 61.5 61.2 61.0 60.6 60.3 59.9

OQFB F-T 60.0 60.3 60.5 61.3 61.7 62.0 62.1 62.5 62.8 62.9 63.1OQFB Std 62.2 61.8 61.6 61.2 61.0 60.6 60.3 59.7 59.6 58.9 58.6

Pulse Time (μ sec)Freeze Thaw Cycles

Note: This mix was made with 8.4 percent cement reduction. Table IQ2 (a): Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing


0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CQB F-T 15398.24 15261.65 15076.24 15027.90 14956.76 14873.28 14765.57 14696.13 14626.87 14581.36 14490.51CQB Std 14591.52 14659.90 14717.57 14740.71 14822.22 14976.38 15072.39 15182.28 15256.40 15368.89 15419.45

OQB F-T 15586.13 15470.46 15256.80 15219.52 15133.42 15024.39 14892.78 14822.14 14775.42 14717.57 14637.08OQB Std 14775.42 14880.99 14940.25 15085.26 15121.95 15247.17 15333.46 15370.88 15471.81 15548.80 15651.78

OQFB F-T 15641.96 15564.03 15513.36 15294.29 15207.06 15133.18 15108.79 15012.10 14940.32 14904.65 14869.16OQFB Std 15084.72 15169.94 15219.20 15331.41 15381.72 15483.59 15560.26 15703.56 15743.08 15916.85 16012.06

Pulse Velocity (ft/sec)Freeze Thaw Cycles


I-1

Table IQ1: Pulse Time Recorded for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing

Mix ID SpecimenCuring

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CQB F-T 60.85 61.3 61.4 61.7 61.95 62.3 62.8 62.9 63.1 63.4 63.65CQB Std 64.55 64.15 63.65 63.4 62.8 62.2 61.85 61.5 61.05 60.7 60.35

OQB F-T 60.25 60.55 60.65 61.15 61.5 61.75 62.05 62.25 62.6 63.1 63.2OQB Std 64 63.65 63.2 62.8 62.1 61.75 61 60.75 60.35 60 59.45

OQFB F-T 59.35 59.65 59.85 60.15 60.35 60.7 60.8 61.25 61.75 62.2 62.45OQFB Std 62.95 62.45 62.15 61.8 61.4 61.15 60.3 59.8 59.45 58.8 58.05

Pulse Time (m sec) Freeze thaw Cycles


ith Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw Table IQ2: Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens w and Standard Curing


0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CQB F-T 15408.00 15294.29 15269.74 15196.44 15135.39 15049.55 14929.29 14905.55 14858.71 14787.99 14729.72CQB Std 14523.84 14614.90 14729.72 14787.65 14928.68 15072.39 15157.65 15243.94 15356.28 15444.81 15534.48

OQB F-T 15560.26 15483.08 15457.55 15331.24 15243.90 15182.28 15108.87 15060.25 14976.08 14857.37 14833.86OQB Std 14648.47 14729.00 14833.86 14928.38 15096.66 15182.43 15370.34 15432.94 15535.25 15625.39 15769.83

OQFB F-T 15796.14 15716.69 15664.17 15586.05 15534.39 15444.81 15419.45 15306.13 15182.20 15072.50 15012.25OQFB Std 14893.01 15012.25 15084.48 15169.90 15268.89 15331.41 15547.43 15677.65 15770.46 15945.03 16150.84

Pulse Velocity (ft/ sec) Freeze thaw Cycles


I-2

Table IL3: Pulse Time Recorded for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Limestone Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing


0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CLB F-T 62.1 62.9 63.0 63.4 63.8 64.2 64.3 64.4 64.7 65.0 65.4CLB Std 65.8 65.4 65.3 64.3 63.7 63.3 62.9 62.6 61.9 61.5 61.1

OLB F-T 61.5 61.9 62.5 62.9 63.2 63.6 63.9 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.5OLB Std 65.2 64.8 64.1 63.6 63.1 62.8 62.2 61.8 61.3 61.0 60.5

OLFB F-T 60.3 60.6 61.3 61.6 61.7 62.0 62.3 62.5 62.9 63.1 63.2OLFB Std 64.1 63.7 63.1 62.7 62.0 61.6 61.1 60.8 60.0 59.7 59.5

Pulse Time ( 8sec)Freeze Thaw Cycles

Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction. Table IL4: Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Limestone Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing


0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CLB F-T 15096.77 14916.93 14881.55 14787.99 14694.68 14615.26 14592.93 14558.33 14491.20 14434.87 14335.16CLB Std 14258.63 14335.16 14368.23 14580.66 14718.01 14811.02 14916.70 14988.25 15145.55 15256.56 15356.36

OLB F-T 15244.26 15145.40 15012.02 14904.61 14845.61 14752.25 14682.93 14648.47 14637.01 14602.84 14546.24OLB Std 14378.87 14467.63 14625.58 14752.17 14857.37 14928.38 15072.70 15170.26 15294.29 15381.72 15508.95

OLFB F-T 15560.26 15470.68 15307.36 15232.33 15195.93 15133.97 15060.33 15012.10 14904.76 14857.52 14833.90OLFB Std 14637.08 14729.00 14857.52 14964.32 15121.01 15219.20 15356.36 15432.11 15638.13 15703.52 15769.65

Freeze Thaw CyclesPulse Velocity (ft/sec)


I-3

Table IG5: Pulse Time Recorded for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Granite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing

30062.4 62.7 62.9 63.1 63.7 64.1 64.2 64.3 64.8

CGB Std 65.1 64.3 63.8 63.5 63.3 62.6 62.2 61.8 61.5 61.0 60.8

OGB F-T 60.8 61.6 61.9 62.2 62.4 62.6 63.0 63.4 63.5 63.9 63.9OGB Std 64.3 63.8 63.3 62.8 62.4 62.0 61.2 61.0 60.6 60.3 59.9

OGFB F-T 60.0 60.8 61.2 61.3 61.7 62.0 62.1 62.5 62.8 62.9 63.1OGFB Std 63.2 62.8 62.5 62.1 61.5 61.0 60.5 59.9 59.6 58.9 58.6

Pulse Time (

ξMix Specimen

ID Curing60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270

sec)Freeze Thaw Cycles

0 30CGB F-T 61.5 62.0


ns with Granite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Table IG6: Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specime Standard Curing


0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CGB F-T 15244.91 15122.38 15026.51 14955.96 14919.88 14859.20 14729.72 14627.33 14604.54 14581.36 14468.45CGB Std 14412.07 14580.66 14694.68 14764.11 14822.22 14976.38 15072.39 15182.28 15256.40 15368.89 15419.45

OGB F-T 15432.11 15220.16 15159.31 15085.26 15036.33 14988.10 14880.95 14798.82 14775.50 14683.07 14683.07OGB Std 14591.52 14694.39 14810.57 14940.32 15036.17 15133.97 15333.46 15370.88 15471.81 15548.80 15651.78

OGFB F-T 15625.04 15432.94 15332.39 15294.29 15207.06 15133.18 15108.79 15012.10 14940.32 14904.65 14869.16OGFB Std 14845.61 14940.25 15012.02 15108.79 15244.26 15369.22 15496.54 15664.43 15743.08 15916.85 16012.06

Pulse Velocity (ft/sec)Freeze Thaw Cycles


I-4

Table IQ7 (a): Percentage Change in the Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggred Standard Curing

gate


Table IQ8 (a): Mean Expansion of Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze

subjected to Freeze Thaw an

Thaw and Standard Curing Mix ID Specimen

Curing0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

CQB F-T 0.00000 0.00625 0.01200 0.01500 0.01775 0.02025 0.02075 0.02400 0.02550 0.02675 0.02800CQB Std 0.00000 0.00150 0.00475 0.00800 0.00975 0.01300 0.01500 0.01575 0.01675 0.01725 0.01825

OQB F-T 0.00000 0.00225 0.00450 0.00750 0.00925 0.01200 0.01425 0.01525 0.01625 0.01775 0.01875OQB Std 0.00000 0.00075 0.00225 0.00375 0.00525 0.00650 0.00825 0.00925 0.01000 0.01150 0.01225

OQFB F-T 0.00000 0.00150 0.00250 0.00325 0.00525 0.00650 0.00800 0.01000 0.01075 0.01175 0.01350OQFB Std 0.00000 0.00100 0.00175 0.00225 0.00300 0.00325 0.00450 0.00500 0.00575 0.00675 0.00675

Mean Expansion (%) Freeze thaw Cycles



0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

CQB F-T 100.00 99.11 97.91 97.60 97.13 96.59 95.90 95.45 95.00 94.71 94.12CQB Std 100.00 100.47 100.87 101.02 101.58 102.64 103.30 104.05 104.56 105.33 105.67

OQB F-T 100.00 99.26 97.89 97.65 97.10 96.40 95.55 95.10 94.80 94.43 93.91OQB Std 100.00 100.71 101.12 102.10 102.35 103.19 103.78 104.03 104.71 105.24 105.93

OQFB F-T 100.00 99.50 99.18 97.79 97.24 96.77 96.61 95.99 95.53 95.31 95.08OQFB Std 100.00 100.57 100.89 101.64 101.97 102.65 103.16 104.10 104.37 105.52 106.15

Change in Pulse Velocity (%)Freeze Thaw Cycles

I-5

Table IQ7: Percentage Change in the Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing


0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CQB F-T 100 99.26 99.10 98.62 98.23 97.67 96.89 96.74 96.43 95.98 95.60CQB Std 100 100.63 101.42 101.82 102.79 103.78 104.37 104.96 105.73 106.34 106.96

OQB F-T 100 99.50 99.34 98.53 97.97 97.57 97.10 96.79 96.25 95.48 95.33OQB Std 100 100.55 101.27 101.91 103.06 103.64 104.93 105.35 106.05 106.67 107.65

OQFB F-T 100 99.50 99.16 98.67 98.34 97.78 97.62 96.90 96.11 95.42 95.04OQFB Std 100 100.80 101.29 101.86 102.52 102.94 104.39 105.27 105.89 107.06 108.44

Change in Pulse Velocity (%) Freeze thaw Cycles

Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction. Table IQ8: Mean Expansion of Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing

Mix ID Specimen Mean Expansion (%)Curing

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300CQB F-T 0.00000 0.00275 0.00875 0.01250 0.01925 0.02125 0.02325 0.02425 0.02550 0.02625 0.02850CQB Std 0.00000 0.00150 0.00400 0.00625 0.00800 0.00975 0.01100 0.01200 0.01375 0.01725 0.01900

OQB F-T 0.00000 0.00125 0.00300 0.00525 0.00608 0.00825 0.01125 0.01250 0.01450 0.01600 0.01725OQB Std 0.00000 0.00150 0.00225 0.00350 0.00500 0.00575 0.00700 0.00850 0.00925 0.01075 0.01150

OQFB F-T 0.00000 0.00050 0.00125 0.00325 0.00525 0.00650 0.00800 0.01050 0.01075 0.01275 0.01300OQFB Std 0.00000 0.00150 0.00400 0.00625 0.00800 0.00975 0.01100 0.01200 0.01375 0.01725 0.01210

Freeze thaw Cycles


I-6

Table IL9: Percentage Change in the Pulse Velocity for Br subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing

idge Deck Concrete Specimens with Limestone Aggregate


0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

CLB F-T 100.00 98.81 98.57 97.95 97.34 96.81 96.66 96.43 95.99 95.61 94.95CLB Std 100.00 100.54 100.77 102.26 103.22 103.87 104.61 105.12 106.22 107.00 107.70

OLB F-T 100.00 99.35 98.48 97.77 97.39 96.78 96.32 96.09 96.02 95.79 95.42OLB Std 100.00 100.62 101.72 102.60 103.33 103.82 104.82 105.50 106.37 106.97 107.86

OLFB F-T 100.00 99.42 98.37 97.89 97.66 97.26 96.79 96.48 95.79 95.48 95.33OLFB Std 100.00 100.63 101.51 102.24 103.31 103.98 104.92 105.43 106.84 107.29 107.74


Note: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction. Table IL10: Mean Expansion of Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Limestone Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing



0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

CLB F-T 0.00000 0.00375 0.00800 0.01350 0.01500 0.01900 0.02150 0.02450 0.02700 0.02800 0.03050

CLB Std 0.00000 0.00150 0.00425 0.00675 0.00950 0.01150 0.01350 0.01475 0.01675 0.01800 0.01975

OLB F-T 0.00000 0.00275 0.00400 0.00700 0.01000 0.01225 0.01450 0.01600 0.01700 0.01825 0.02000OLB Std 0.00000 0.00075 0.00225 0.00350 0.00450 0.00675 0.00750 0.00850 0.00950 0.01000 0.01250

OLFB F-T 0.00000 0.00150 0.00250 0.00325 0.00525 0.00650 0.00800 0.01000 0.010755

0.01175 0.01350OLFB Std 0.00000 0.00125 0.00150 0.00275 0.00400 0.00525 0.00650 0.00700 0.00775 0.00850 0.00875

Freeze Thaw CyclesMean Expansion (%)

I-7

Table IG11: Percentage Change in the Pulse Velocity for Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Granite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing


0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

CGB F-T 100.00 99.20 98.56 98.10 97.86 97.47 96.62 95.95 95.80 95.65 94.91CGB Std 100.00 101.17 101.96 102.44 102.85 103.92 104.58 105.35 105.86 106.64 106.99

OGB F-T 100.00 98.63 98.23 97.75 97.44 97.12 96.43 95.90 95.75 95.15 95.15OGB Std 100.00 100.71 101.50 102.39 103.05 103.72 105.08 105.34 106.03 106.56 107.27

OGFB F-T 100.00 98.77 98.13 97.88 97.32 96.85 96.70 96.08 95.62 95.39 95.16OGFB Std 100.00 100.64 101.12 101.77 102.69 103.53 104.39 105.52 106.05 107.22 107.86


ote: This mix was made with 10 percent cement reduction.

Table IG12: Mean Expansion of Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Granite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw

5 0.00650 0.00800 0.01000 0.01075 0.01175 0.01350OGFB Std 0.00000 0.00125 0.00225 0.00350 0.00400 0.00500 0.00650 0.00700 0.00775 0.00850 0.00925

Freeze Thaw CyclesMean Expansion (%)

N

and Standard Curing


0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

CGB F-T 0.00000 0.00475 0.00925 0.01425 0.01550 0.02025 0.02275 0.02525 0.02675 0.02825 0.02925CGB Std 0.00000 0.00150 0.00425 0.00625 0.00875 0.01000 0.01275 0.01475 0.01600 0.01800 0.01925

OGB F-T 0.00000 0.00225 0.00450 0.00750 0.00925 0.01200 0.01425 0.01525 0.01625 0.01775 0.01875OGB Std 0.00000 0.00125 0.00225 0.00375 0.00525 0.00650 0.00825 0.00925 0.01000 0.01200 0.01325

OGFB F-T 0.00000 0.00150 0.00250 0.00325 0.0052


I-8

Table IQ13 (a): Durability Factor of Bridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing


k Concrete Specimens with Quartzite Aggregate subjected to Freeze ThawTable IQ13: Durability Factor of Bridge Dec and Standard Curing

Mix ID Specimen

Curing0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

CQB F-T 100.00 98.53 98.21 97.27 96.49 95.40 93.88 93.59 93.00 92.12 91.40CQB Std 100.00 101.25 102.86 103.66 105.65 107.70 108.92 110.16 111.80 113.09 114.41

OQB F-T 100.00 99.01 98.69 97.09 95.98 95.20 94.28 93.68 92.63 91.17 90.88OQB Std 100.00 101.11 102.55 103.87 106.21 107.42 110.11 111.00 112.48 113.79 115.90

OQFB F-T 100.00 99.00 98.34 97.36 96.72 95.61 95.29 93.90 92.38 91.06 90.32OQFB Std 100.00 101.61 102.58 103.76 105.12 105.98 108.98 110.81 112.13 114.63 117.61

Durability Factor Freeze thaw Cycles


urability FactorFreeze Thaw Cycles

Mix Specimen DID Curing

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

CQB F-T 100.00 98.23 95.87 95.25 94.35 93.30 91.97 91.11 90.27 89.70 88.60CQB Std 100.00 100.94 101.74 102.06 103.19 105.35 106.70 108.26 109.32 110.95 111.67

OQB F-T 100.00 98.53 95.83 95.36 94.27 92.93 91.31 90.44 89.87 89.17 88.20OQB Std 100.00 101.44 102.24 104.24 104.76 106.51 107.72 108.24 109.66 110.76 112.22

OQFB F-T 100.00 99.01 98.36 95.64 94.57 93.67 93.37 92.16 91.29 90.86 90.43OQFB Std 100.00 101.14 101.80 103.32 104.00 105.38 106.42 108.39 108.93 111.35 112.69

I-9

mens with Limestone Aggregate subjected to Freeze Table IL14: Durability Factor of Bridge Deck Concrete Speci

Thaw and Standard Curing


0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

CLB F-T 100.00 97.64 97.17 95.96 94.75 93.73 93.45 93.00 92.15 91.43 90.17CLB Std 100.00 101.08 101.55 104.57 106.55 107.90 109.45 110.49 112.83 114.49 116.00

OLB F-T 100.00 98.71 96.98 95.61 94.85 93.65 92.78 92.35 92.20 91.77 91.05OLB Std 100.00 101.24 103.47 105.26 106.76 108.13 110.94 112.40 114.62 115.38 116.34

OLFB F-T 100.00 98.85 96.78 95.83 95.38 94.60 93.68 93.08 91.75 91.17 90.88OLFB Std 100.00 101.27 103.04 104.54 106.73 108.12 110.08 111.16 114.15 115.12 116.08

Durability FactorFreeze Thaw Cycles


ridge Deck Concrete Specimens with Granite Aggregate subjected to Freeze Thaw and Standard Curing

Table IG15: Durability Factor of B


0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

CGB F-T 100.00 98.40 97.15 96.23 95.77 95.00 93.36 92.06 91.77 91.48 90.08CGB Std 100.00 102.35 103.97 104.95 105.78 108.00 109.38 110.98 112.07 113.73 114.48

OGB F-T 100.00 97.29 96.52 95.56 94.95 94.33 92.99 91.98 91.68 90.54 90.54OGB Std 100.00 101.41 103.03 104.85 106.19 107.58 110.44 110.79 112.44 113.56 115.06

OGFB F-T 100.00 97.56 96.29 95.81 94.72 93.81 93.51 92.30 91.43 90.99 90.56OGFB Std 100.00 101.28 102.58 103.59 105.46 107.19 108.97 111.35 112.46 114.96 116.34

Durability FactorFreeze Thaw Cycles


I-10

Appendix – J

Concrete Plastic Shrinkage Reduction Potential

J-1

Figure J1: General View of the Plastic Shrinkage Test Set-Up.

Figure J2: Another View of all the Slabs - 24 Hours after the Plastic Shrinkage Test.

J-2

Figure J3: Control Concrete With Quartzite Aggregate.

J-3

Figure J4: Optimized Concrete Without Fly Ash.

J-4

Figure J5: Optimized Concrete With Fly Ash.

K-1

Validity of 0.45 Power Chart in Obtaining the Optimized Aggregate Gradation for Improving the Strength

Aspects of High Performance Concrete

Ramesh K. Panchalan1, Dola K. Erla2, Srikanth Kalahasti2 and V. Ramakrishnan3

1Doctoral Student

2Graduate Student 3Regents Distinguished Professor Emeritus

Department of Civil Engineering South Dakota School of Mines & Technology

Rapid City, SD 57701, USA

Abstract

This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation to determine the validity of 0.45-power chart in obtaining the optimized aggregate gradation for improving the strength characteristics of high performance concrete (HPC). Historically, the 0.45 power chart has been used to develop uniform gradations for asphalt mix designs; however it has now been widely used to develop uniform gradations for portland cement concrete mix designs. Some reports have circulated in the industry that plotting the sieve opening raised to the 0.45 power may not be universally applicable for all aggregates. In this paper the validity of 0.45 power chart has been evaluated using quartzite aggregates. Aggregates of different sizes and gradations were blended to fit exactly the gradations of curves raised to 0.35, 0.40, 0.45, 0.50 and 0.55. Five mixes, which incorporated the aggregate gradations of the five power curves, were made and tested for compressive strength and flexural strength. A control mix was also made whose aggregate gradations did not match the straight-line gradations of the 0.45 power curve. This was achieved by using a single size aggregate and sand. The water-cement ratio and the cement content were kept constant for all the six mixes. The results showed that the mix incorporating the 0.45 power chart gradations gave the highest strength when compared to other power charts and the control concrete. Thus the 0.45 power curve can be adopted

K-2

with confidence to obtain the densest packing of aggregates and it may be universally applicable for all aggregates. INTRODUCTION High Performance Concrete (HPC) is defined (Russell, 1999) as “Concrete meeting special combinations of performance and uniformity requirements that cannot always be achieved routinely using conventional constituents and normal mixing, placing and curing practices”. Thus HPC should necessarily have improved strength and durability properties than ordinary portland cement concrete (PCC). Mostly attempts were made to achieve durability by increasing the cementitious materials content and reducing the water-cementitious materials ratio. But very few have attempted to achieve HPC by using combined well-graded aggregates in concrete. The most important feature of a mix design is aggregate content. The resulting mix design should have a strong aggregate skeleton for permanent deformation resistance and an optimum amount of cement, which acts as a binder for the aggregates. The void space in the aggregate skeleton can be changed by varying the gradation (particle size distribution) of a mixture. A well-graded combined aggregate gradation requires graded coarse aggregates and coarser fine aggregates. But today fine aggregates do not contain predominantly coarse particles. HPC can be achieved by combining aggregates of different sizes and blending them, thus reducing the requirement for additional water and cementitious materials. Optimized aggregate gradation should be the most basic goal of achieving HPC. Once the aggregates are optimized with a low-paste content, the mobility of the concrete mix improves tremendously. A well-graded aggregate can increase the density of the concrete by reducing the void space, which will lower the requirement for cement for binding them together. Most of the problems in concrete are caused due to the presence of excess cement in the concrete. Thus a well-graded aggregate can increase the durability and structural integrity of concrete by optimizing the cement content. PROBLEM STATEMENT Engineers and researchers use the 0.45 power gradation for obtaining the densest possible (maximum density) packing of aggregates. There is concern whether plotting of the sieve size raised to 0.45 power may not be universally applicable to all aggregates. Thus there is a need to evaluate the validity of the 0.45 power chart using an aggregate (other than the granite

K-3

aggregate that was used to develop the 0.45 power curve), to determine whether the chart is universally applicable for all aggregates. BACKGROUND The 0.45 power chart was developed based on the work done by Nijboer from the Netherlands in the 1930’s. He found that the greatest packing of different sized particles occurs when the gradation is a straight line with a slope of 0.45 on a log percent passing vs. log particle size graph. Nijboer (1948) did his experiments on both crushed stone (quarried aggregates) and uncrushed gravel. The 0.45 power worked for both of them. Goode and Lufsey (1962) from the USA further investigated Nijboer’s work. They redid Nijboer's experiment using only gravel aggregate. They created a plot where the y-axis is percent passing (by mass) on arithmetic scale and the x-axis is the sieve size raised to the 0.45 power. Hence, the origin of the 0.45 power chart. But they did not determine how to draw a "maximum density line" for actual gradations. Two methods are available in the literature for drawing the maximum density line (MDL). In one method the MDL is a line drawn from the percent passing the 0.075 mm sieve to the first sieve passing 100 percent. In the other method contained in the Asphalt institute publications MDL is the line drawn from the origin to the maximum sieve size. The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) investigated the two methods for drawing the maximum density lines. A detailed report is available in the ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 1147. After a detailed investigation it was determined that the second method is better suited for drawing the MDL. Thus basically the 0.45 power chart was developed for HMA mixes and not for cement concrete mixes. And also there is concern whether the 0.45 power chart may not be universally applicable for all aggregates. The second method of drawing the MDL from the origin to the maximum sieve size required a clear definition of the maximum size of the aggregate. Determining the 0.45 Power Curve The 0.45 power curve is obtained by plotting the mathematically combined percent passing for each sieve on a chart having percent passing on the y-axis and sieve sizes raised to the 0.45 power on the x-axis. Sieve sizes include the following: 37.5 mm (1 ½ in.), 25.0 mm (1 in.), 19.0 mm (3/4 in.), 12.5 mm (1/2 in.), 9.5 mm (3/8 in.), 4.75 mm (No. 4), 2.36 mm (No. 8), 1.18 mm (No. 16), 600 μm (No. 30), 300 μm (No. 50), 150 μm (No. 100) and

K-4

75μm (No. 200). The maximum density line is drawn from the origin of the chart to the maximum aggregate size. Nominal Maximum and Maximum Aggregate Size Definitions The definition of the maximum aggregate size is essential to determine the maximum density line (MDL). The Asphalt Institute (ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 1147) defines the:

• Nominal maximum size as one size larger than the first sieve to retain more than 10 percent.

• Maximum size as one size larger than nominal maximum size. There is a controversy in defining the maximum aggregate size. There is concern among engineers on what definition should be followed (Asphalt Institute or ASTM) for determining the maximum aggregate size. The authors have attempted to answer the concern with an example. First the individual gradations of 4 coarse aggregates and one fine aggregate were evaluated and are shown in Table 1. In aggregate # 1, the first sieve to retain more than 10% is 12.7 mm (½ in.) sieve. Therefore according to asphalt institute definitions the 19 mm (¾ in.) sieve is the nominal maximum size and 25.4 mm (1 in.) is the maximum size. By taking 25.4 mm (1 in.) sieve size as maximum size the target gradations were determined and are shown in Table 1 (A detailed explanation for determining the target gradation is given later in the paper). As one can see from Table 1, the individual target gradations of aggregate # 1, # 2, # 3, # 4 and sand have 100% passing for sieve sizes 25.4 mm (1 in.) and 19 mm (¾ in.). The combined gradation percentage will always be 100 for whatever individual blend percentages we take for that particular sieve sizes. Therefore we can never satisfy the target percentage passing of 88 for 19 mm (¾ in.) sieve size (Fig. 1). The asphalt institute definition does not satisfy in this example. Therefore the authors propose the following definition of maximum aggregate size. It is the smallest sieve opening through which the entire amount (100 %) of aggregates must pass. This definition is consistent with the ASTM definition for maximum aggregate size (ASTM C 125, 2003) and is followed in this paper. According to the definitions the maximum size of aggregates # 1, # 2, # 3, and # 4 were found to be 19 mm (¾ in.), 14.3 mm (9/16 in.), 11.1 mm (7/16 in.) and 9.5 mm (3/8 in.). Even though the maximum size of aggregates # 2 and # 3 were both 12.7 mm (1/2 in.) their individual gradations were different (Table 1). Therefore to prevent confusion it can be called as 9/16 in. and 7/16 in. aggregates. All the 4 aggregates were blended with sand, the largest of the 4 aggregates 19 mm (¾ in.) aggregate was taken as the maximum size aggregate.

K-5

Target Gradation The maximum density line is a straight line that gives the target gradation. The maximum aggregate size raised to the 0.45 power on the x-axis will have cumulative 100 percent passing in the y-axis. Thus the x and y values are known for the maximum aggregate size point in the graph. We can determine the slope of the line by substituting the x and y values in the equation of the line (as the MDL passes the origin the intercept value in the equation of the line is zero). Once the slope of the MDL is determined we can determine the respective cumulative percentage passing for the other sieve sizes. Thus the target gradations that give the densest packing of aggregates are obtained. The target gradations depend on the maximum aggregate size and the value of the power on the x-axis. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The main objectives of this investigation were:

• To determine whether the sieve opening raised to 0.45 power is applicable for quartzite aggregates for determining the MDL.

• To confirm the existence of a line of maximum density for obtaining the densest packing of aggregates.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM Quartzite aggregate samples of different sizes and different gradations were obtained from local sources in South Dakota. Sieve Analysis was done on each of these individual sample aggregates (both fine and coarse). The fineness moduli of the quartzite aggregates were evaluated as per ASTM C136. The individual gradation plots of all the aggregates were plotted. The theoretical target gradations were first obtained for the different powers: 0.35, 0.40, 0.45, 0.50 and 0.55. The combined gradation was then obtained by blending different percentages of four coarse aggregates19 mm (¾ in.), 14.3 mm (9/16 in.), 11.1 mm (7/16 in.) and 9.5 mm (3/8 in.), and one fine aggregate. The blend percentages of the aggregates were varied such that the combined gradation fits exactly the target gradation. The individual blend percentages of the aggregates for the different power curves are given in Table 2. The combined gradations of the blended aggregates satisfied the target gradations obtained from various power charts (Table 3). The individual percentage of aggregates, that were used to satisfy the various power target gradations, by weight were taken and blended and sieve

K-6

analysis was done in the lab to evaluate whether the experimentally and theoretically obtained combined gradations are the same. It was found to be the same. Fig. 2 shows that the combined gradation (obtained by blending) exactly fits the theoretical target gradation (obtained from the 0.45 power curve). Five mixes, which incorporated the aggregate gradations of the five power curves, were made and tested for compressive strength (at 7 and 28 days) and flexural strength (at 28 days). A control mix was also made whose aggregate gradations did not match the straight-line gradations of the 0.45 power curve (Fig. 2). This was achieved by blending a single size aggregate [62.5% of 19 mm (¾ in.) aggregate] and sand [37.5%]. The percentages of the coarse and fine aggregate were the same, to what was used earlier, for obtaining the 0.45 optimum chart (Table 2). The water-cement ratio and the cement content were kept constant for all the six mixes. The fresh concrete properties for all the mixes are shown in Table 4. It was found that the mix adopting the 0.35 power chart was “sandy”, whereas the mix adopting the 0.55 power chart gradation was “rocky”. The mix adopting the 0.45 power chart gradation was found to be the optimum mix when compared to all the 6 mixes. It had adequate mortar for finishing with very good workability. The fresh concrete unit weight of this mix was the highest indicating maximum density. The air contents for all the mixes were almost the same indicating that the cement content had major effect on the entrained air content rather than the gradation (cement was constant for all the mixes). The results showed that the mix incorporating the 0.45 power chart gradations gave the highest compressive and flexural strength when compared to other power charts and the control concrete (Fig. 3, 4, 5 and 6). The 0.45 optimum mix showed 6% and 16% more compressive strength than the 0.35 and 0.55 optimum mixes respectively. This suggests that when the power was raised beyond 0.45 the compressive strength decreases rapidly. The 0.45 optimum mix showed 12% more compressive strength than the 0.45 control mix. The flexural strength values of all the concretes mixes also followed the same trend. Why the 0.45 power chart gradation performed better? As one can see from Table 2, 20.6% of 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) aggregate was used for achieving the 0.45 power chart target gradations. This value was the highest when compared to other power charts. The 0.45 power chart required more 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) aggregate than the other power charts for satisfying their respective target gradations. The minus 9.5 mm (3/8 in.), plus 2.36 mm (No. 8) sieve particles are the intermediate particles that fill the

K-7

major voids and aid in mix mobility. Since more of these intermediate particles were used for achieving the target gradations of the 0.45 power chart, the concrete mix incorporating these gradations gave the best workable mix with the maximum strength. CONCLUSIONS The results showed that the mix incorporating the 0.45 power chart gradations gave the highest strength when compared to other power charts and the control concrete. The mix also had very good workability. Thus the 0.45 power curve can be adopted with confidence to obtain the densest configuration of aggregates and it is also universally applicable for all aggregates. The increase in strength obtained by using well-graded aggregates can be used to optimize the cement content for improving the durability aspects of concrete. REFERENCES Russell, H.G., (1999), "ACI Defines High-Performance Concrete", Concrete International, ACI Journal, V.21, No.2, pp.56-57. Nijboer, L.W., (1948), “Plasticity as a factor in the Design of Dense Bituminous Road Carpets”, Elsevier Publishing, New York. Goode, J.F. and Lufsey, L.S., (1962), “A New Graphical Chart for Evaluation Aggregate Gradations”, Proceedings of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol.31, pp. 176-207. ASTM C 125 (2003), “Standard Terminology Relating to Concrete and Concrete Aggregates”, ASTM Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates, ASTM International, Pennsylvania, USA. STP 1147 (1992), “Effects of Aggregates and Mineral Fillers on Asphalt Mixture Performance”, ASTM Special Technical Publication, Edited By Meininger, R. C., ASTM International, Pennsylvania, USA. ASTM C 136 (2001), “Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates”, ASTM Book of Standards, Volume 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates, ASTM International, Pennsylvania, USA.

K-8

Table 1 Blend and Target Gradations obtained by following Asphalt Definitions for

Maximum Aggregate Size

% Passing

% Batch

% Passing

% Batch

% Passing

% Batch % Passing

% Batch % Passing

% Batch

1 25.4 100.00 36.20 100.00 2.00 100.00 3.70 100.00 20.60 100.00 37.50 100 1003/4 19 100.00 36.20 100.00 2.00 100.00 3.70 100.00 20.60 100.00 37.50 100 881/2 12.7 54.00 19.55 100.00 2.00 100.00 3.70 100.00 20.60 100.00 37.50 83 733/8 9.5 26.89 9.73 90.00 1.80 99.15 3.67 100.00 20.60 100.00 37.50 73 64

No. 4 4.75 5.89 2.13 46.28 0.93 47.77 1.77 58.56 12.06 99.65 37.37 54 47No. 8 2.36 3.86 1.40 15.91 0.32 10.59 0.39 8.52 1.76 88.04 33.01 37 34

No. 16 1.18 3.06 1.11 6.92 0.14 4.56 0.17 2.04 0.42 66.10 24.79 27 25No. 30 0.6 2.41 0.87 4.43 0.09 3.19 0.12 1.13 0.23 37.80 14.18 15 19No. 50 0.3 1.82 0.66 2.90 0.06 2.23 0.08 0.79 0.16 18.66 7.00 8 14

No. 100 0.15 0.84 0.30 1.19 0.02 2.20 0.08 0.49 0.10 5.08 1.91 2 10

Aggregate # 2 (2%)

Aggregate # 1 (36.2%)Sieve

Size (in)

Sieve Size (mm)

Blend percentage

passing

Sand (37.5%)

Aggregate # 3 (3.7%)

Aggregate # 4 (20.6%) Target

percentage passing

Table 2 Individual Blend Percentages of the Aggregates for Different Power Charts

Aggregate # 1 19.05 mm (3/4 in.)

Aggregate # 2 14.29 mm (9/16 in.)

Aggregate # 3 11.11 mm (7/16 in.)

Aggregate # 4 9.52 mm (3/8 in.)

0.35 26.5 14.5 6.0 2.0 51.0 1000.40 35.0 2.0 13.0 3.0 47.0 1000.45 36.2 2.0 3.7 20.6 37.5 1000.50 38.0 9.5 9.5 10.0 33.0 1000.55 38.5 10.5 10.5 13.0 27.5 100

Total Percentage

Blend PercentagesCoarse Aggregates PercentagePower

Chart Type

Fine Aggregate

%

K-9

Table 3 Blend and Target Gradations for Different Power Charts

Table 4 Fresh Concrete P operties for all the Mixes

Blend Gradation

Target Gradation

Blend Gradation

Target Gradation

Blend Gradation

Target Gradation

Blend Gradation

Target Gradation

Blend Gradation

Target Gradation

3/4 19 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1001/2 12.7 88 87 84 85 83 83 83 82 82 803/8 9.5 79 78 74 76 73 73 71 71 71 68

No. 4 4.75 63 62 58 57 54 54 50 50 47 47No. 8 2.36 49 48 45 43 37 39 34 35 30 32No. 16 1.18 36 38 33 33 27 29 24 25 21 22No. 30 0.6 21 30 19 25 15 21 14 18 12 15No. 50 0.3 11 23 10 19 8 15 7 13 6 10

No. 100 0.15 3 18 3 14 2 11 2 9 2 7

Gradation0.3

GradationSieve Size (in)

Sieve Size (mm)

0.55 Power Chart GradationGradation Gradation

0.40 Power Chart 5 Power Chart 0.45 Power Chart 0.50 Power Chart

r

Mix Ambient Humidity Slump Air Unit ConcreteID Temp. Content Weight Temp.

oC (RH) (mm) (%) kg/m3 oC0.35 21.1 30 6.35 2.0 2396.6 21.10.40 21.1 30 12.70 2.0 2428.6 21.10.45 21.1 30 19.05 1.8 2435.0 21.10.50 21.1 30 12.70 1.8 2428.6 21.10.55 21.1 30 6.35 2.0 2390.2 21.1

Control 21.1 30 31.75 1.8 2454.3 21.1

K-10

Fig. 1 Comparison of Blend & T Gradations (Asphalt Defn

Fig. 3 Compressive Strength for Fig. 4 Compressive Strength for Various Types of Power Curve Mixes 0.45 Optimum & Control Curve Mixes

Fig. 5 Flexural Strengths for Fig. 6 Flexural Strengths for 0.45 Various Types of Power Curve Mixes Optimum & Control Curve Mixes

arget Fig. 2 Comparison of Optimum, Target .) and Control Gradations (ASTM Defn.)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5(Sieve Size - mm)^0.45

Perc

ent P

assi

ng

Target GradationCombined Gradation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55Type of Power Curve

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (M

Pa)

7 Days 28 Days

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55Type of Power Curve

Flex

ural

Str

engt

h (M

Pa)

00 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

20

40

60

80

100

(Sieve Size - mm)^0.45

Target GradationOptimum Gradation

Perc

ent P

assi

ng Control Gradation

0

10

20

30

0.45 Optimum ControlT

40

50

60

ype of Power Curve

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (M

Pa)

7 Days 28 Days

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0.45 Optimum ControlType of Power Curve

Flex

ural

Str

engt

h (M

Pa)

Appendix – L Temperature Monitoring With

I-Button

L-1

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

3/7/03 0:00 3/8/03 0:00 3/9/03 0:00 3/10/03 0:00 3/11/03 0:00 3/12/03 0:00 3/13/03 0:00 3/14/03 0:00 3/15/03 0:00 3/16/03 0:00

Time

Tem

pera

ture

(0 F)

Figure L1: Variation of concrete (1CLB) temperature over a period of 7 days

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

3/7/2003 0:00 3/8/2003 0:00 3/9/2003 0:00 3/10/2003 0:00 3/11/2003 0:00 3/12/2003 0:00 3/13/2003 0:00 3/14/2003 0:00 3/15/2003 0:00

Time

Tem

pera

ture

(0 F)

Figure L2: Variation of concrete (1OLB) temperature over a period of 7 days

L-2

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

3/9/2003 0:00 3/10/2003 0:00 3/11/2003 0:00 3/12/2003 0:00 3/13/2003 0:00 3/14/2003 0:00 3/15/2003 0:00 3/16/2003 0:00 3/17/2003 0:00

Time

Tem

pera

ture

(0 F)

Figure L3: Variation of concrete (1OLFB) temperature over a period of 7 days

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

3/20/03 0:00 3/21/03 0:00 3/22/03 0:00 3/23/03 0:00 3/24/03 0:00 3/25/03 0:00 3/26/03 0:00 3/27/03 0:00 3/28/03 0:00

Time

Tem

pera

ture

(0 F)


L-3

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

3/20/03 0:00 3/21/03 0:00 3/22/03 0:00 3/23/03 0:00 3/24/03 0:00 3/25/03 0:00 3/26/03 0:00 3/27/03 0:00 3/28/03 0:00

Time

Tem

pera

ture

(0 F)


62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

3/21/03 0:00 3/22/03 0:00 3/23/03 0:00 3/24/03 0:00 3/25/03 0:00 3/26/03 0:00 3/27/03 0:00 3/28/03 0:00 3/29/03 0:00

Time

Tem

pera

ture

(0 F)


L-4

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

4/13/03 0:00 4/14/03 0:00 4/15/03 0:00 4/16/03 0:00 4/17/03 0:00 4/18/03 0:00 4/19/03 0:00 4/20/03 0:00 4/21/03 0:00

Time

Tem

pera

ture

(0 F)


66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

4/13/03 0:00 4/14/03 0:00 4/15/03 0:00 4/16/03 0:00 4/17/03 0:00 4/18/03 0:00 4/19/03 0:00 4/20/03 0:00 4/21/03 0:00

Time

Tem

pera

ture

(0 F)


L-5

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

4/13/03 0:00 4/14/03 0:00 4/15/03 0:00 4/16/03 0:00 4/17/03 0:00 4/18/03 0:00 4/19/03 0:00 4/20/03 0:00 4/21/03 0:00

Time

Tem

pera

ture

(0 F)


66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

5/3/03 0:00 5/4/03 0:00 5/5/03 0:00 5/6/03 0:00 5/7/03 0:00 5/8/03 0:00 5/9/03 0:00 5/10/03 0:00 5/11/03 0:00

Time

Tem

pera

ture

(0 F)


L-6

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

5/3/03 0:00 5/4/03 0:00 5/5/03 0:00 5/6/03 0:00 5/7/03 0:00 5/8/03 0:00 5/9/03 0:00 5/10/03 0:00 5/11/03 0:00

Time

Tem

pera

ture

(0 F)


66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

5/3/03 0:00 5/4/03 0:00 5/5/03 0:00 5/6/03 0:00 5/7/03 0:00 5/8/03 0:00 5/9/03 0:00 5/10/03 0:00 5/11/03 0:00

Time

Tem

pera

ture

(0 F)


L-7

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

4/21/03 0:00 4/22/03 0:00 4/23/03 0:00 4/24/03 0:00 4/25/03 0:00 4/26/03 0:00 4/27/03 0:00 4/28/03 0:00

Time

Tem

epra

ture

(0 F)

Figure L13: Variation of concrete (1CGB) temperature over a period of 7 days

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

4/21/03 0:00 4/22/03 0:00 4/23/03 0:00 4/24/03 0:00 4/25/03 0:00 4/26/03 0:00 4/27/03 0:00 4/28/03 0:00

Time

Tem

pear

atur

e (0 F)

Figure L14: Variation of concrete (1OGB) temperature over a period of 7 days

L-8

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

4/21/03 0:00 4/22/03 0:00 4/23/03 0:00 4/24/03 0:00 4/25/03 0:00 4/26/03 0:00 4/27/03 0:00 4/28/03 0:00

Time

Tem

pera

ture

(0 F)

Figure L15: Variation of concrete (1OGFB) temperature over a period of 7 days

66

70

74

78

82

86

90

94

98

6/18/03 0:00 6/19/03 0:00 6/20/03 0:00 6/21/03 0:00 6/22/03 0:00 6/23/03 0:00 6/24/03 0:00 6/25/03 0:00 6/26/03 0:00

Time

Tem

pera

ture

(0 F)

Figure L16: Variation of concrete (1CQB) temperature over a period of 7 days

L-9

66

70

74

78

82

86

90

94

98

6/18/03 0:00 6/19/03 0:00 6/20/03 0:00 6/21/03 0:00 6/22/03 0:00 6/23/03 0:00 6/24/03 0:00 6/25/03 0:00 6/26/03 0:00

Time

Tem

pera

ture

(0 F)

Figure L17: Variation of concrete (1OQB) temperature over a period of 7 days

66

70

74

78

82

86

90

94

98

6/18/03 0:00 6/19/03 0:00 6/20/03 0:00 6/21/03 0:00 6/22/03 0:00 6/23/03 0:00 6/24/03 0:00 6/25/03 0:00 6/26/03 0:00

Time

Tem

pera

ture

(0 F)

Figure L18: Variation of concrete (1OQFB) temperature over a period of 7 days

Documents

Optimized Aggregate Gradation for Structural …sddot.com/business/research/projects/docs/SD2002_02_Final_Report.pdfOptimized Aggregate Gradation for Structural Concrete ... Optimized