Implementing HPC on the Sunshine Bridge Project

              Implementing HPC on the
Sunshine Bridge Project
Final Report 538
Prepared by:
Tarif M. Jaber, P. E. FACI
Jaber Engineering Consulting, Inc.
10827 E. Butherus Drive
Scottsdale, Arizona 85255
November 2007
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
in cooperation with
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
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 official views or
policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. The
report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’
names that appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives
of the report. The U. S. Government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or
manufacturers.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
SPR 538
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
November 16, 2007
Implementing HPC on the Sunshine Bridge Project 6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author
Tarif M. Jaber, P. E. FACI
8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Jaber Engineering Consulting, Inc.
10. Work Unit No.
10827 E. Butherus Drive
Scottsdale, Arizona 85255
11. Contract or Grant No.
T0402A0002 SPR 538
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
206 S. 17TH AVENUE
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
Technical Report
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007
Project Manager: Christ Dimitroplos
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
This work is a joint effort of Jaber Engineering Consulting, Inc. and Premier Engineering, Inc. Jaber
Engineering Consulting, Inc. is the Principal Investigator and Premier Engineering, Inc. is the bridge
designer and engineer of record. Prepared in cooperation with the U. S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract
This report presents the research work from a pilot program regarding the feasibility of
implementing high performance concrete on Arizona bridge decks, using the Sunshine Bridge in
Holbrook, Arizona as a test case. An existing concrete slab was removed and a new concrete slab
using silica fume high peformace concrete with low corrosion steel was constructed. Steps in the
pilot program included developing a HPC mix design using laboratory tests of various batches.
Field trial batches were conducted at a ready mix plant near the Sunshine Bridge to simulate job
conditions such as concrete batching, travel time, plastic and hardened concrete properties. Test
results indicated that a concrete mix design with 0.41 w/ cm ratio and 5 percent silica fume by
weight of cement provided overall optimum performance against project requirements.
On- site slab demonstration placements of HPC at the bridge by the selected contractor simulated
actual job conditions such as concrete batching, travel time, placement, finishing, curing, etc. The
purpose of this field placement is to evaluate the contractor’s procedures and crew. The bridge
deck consisted of a total of 206 yards were placed at a rate of approximately 37 yards of concrete
per hour on August 24, 2005. A comprehensive testing program measured and documented HPC
properties and filed practices as a reference for future bridge deck projects using HPC.
17. Key Words
High performance concrete, silica fume,
Implementation of high performance
concrete, bridge decks, prescriptive
specification, low carbon steel, chloride
permeability, shrinkage, wet curing, pumping
concrete, air loss, basalt aggregates, scaling
resistance, concrete resistance to
freeze/ thaw exposure
18. Distribution Statement
Document is available to the
U. S. public through the
National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia
22161
23. Registrant's Seal
19. Security Classification
Unclassified
20. Security Classification
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
154
22. Price
Form DOT F 1700.7 ( 8- 72)
SI* ( MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
ft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft
yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA AREA
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 Square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 Square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
gal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 35.315 cubic feet ft3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 1.308 cubic yards yd3
NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m3.
MASS MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb
T short tons ( 2000lb) 0.907 megagrams
( or “ metric ton”)
mg
( or “ t”)
mg megagrams
( or “ metric ton”)
1.102 short tons ( 2000lb) T
TEMPERATURE ( exact) TEMPERATURE ( exact)
º F Fahrenheit
temperature
5( F- 32)/ 9
or ( F- 32)/ 1.8
Celsius temperature º C º C Celsius temperature 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit
temperature
º F
ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION
fc foot candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 foot- candles fc
fl foot- Lamberts 3.426 candela/ m2 cd/ m2 cd/ m2 candela/ m2 0.2919 foot- Lamberts fl
FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS
lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
lbf/ in2 poundforce per
square inch
6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per
square inch
lbf/ in2
SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................... 1
II. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 3
A. PURPOSE ................................................................................................................... 3
B. SCOPE OF WORK ...................................................................................................... 3
C. BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................... 4
III. HPC IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM............................................ 7
A. LABORATORY TRIAL BATCHES ................................................................................ 7
B. DEVELOPING HPC MIX IN THE FIELD ...................................................................... 9
C. DEVELOPING HPC SPECIFICATIONS....................................................................... 11
D. PROJECT BIDDING.................................................................................................. 12
E. PRE- CONSTRUCTION WORK................................................................................... 12
F. HPC DECK PLACEMENT ........................................................................................ 17
IV. CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED .................................. 25
V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 29
VI. REFERENCES..................................................................................... 31
APPENDIX A: LABORATORY TRIAL BATCHES
APPENDIX B: FIELD TRIAL BATCHES QUALITY READY MIX
APPENDIX C: PRECONSTRUCTION WORK FIELD TRIAL BATCHES SLAB
DEMONSTRATIONS
APPENDIX D: FIELD TEST RESULTS CONCRETE DECK PLACEMENT
APPENDIX E: LABORATORY TEST RESULTS CONCRETE DECK PLACEMENT
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Aerial view of the completed Sunshine Bridge............................ 2
Figure 2. Bridge Elevation Profile ............................................................... 4
Figure 3. Bridge Plan ................................................................................... 5
Figure 4. Proposed Bridge Section .............................................................. 6
Figure 5. Laboratory Trial Batches.............................................................. 7
Figure 6. Selected Mix Design.................................................................... 9
Figure 7. Testing HPC Trial Batches at the Ready Mix ............................ 10
Figure 8. Aggregate Moisture Properties Comparison .............................. 14
Figure 9. Slab Demonstration No. 1 ........................................................... 16
Figure 10. Pumping Concrete Using an “ S” Pipe ...................................... 19
Figure 11. Concrete Finishing Machine..................................................... 21
Figure 12. Finishing Areas Next to the Machine Railing .......................... 21
Figure 13. Working Bridge to Lay Down Curing Sheets .......................... 22
Figure 14. Wetting Down Curing Sheets................................................... 23
1
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The I- 40 Sunshine Bridge deck replacement was a pilot project conducted by the Arizona
Department of Transportation ( ADOT) to evaluate the feasibility of using High
Performance Concrete ( HPC) technology for bridges in the State of Arizona. The project
consisted of replacing a cast- in- place concrete deck with a durable HPC deck reinforced
with low corrosion steel.
A special provisional specification was written for the pilot project that emphasized HPC
bridge deck construction technology and practices. The design performance criteria for
the bridge deck were:
􀂃 Durability under freeze- thaw exposure
􀂃 Lower permeability to salt penetration
􀂃 Lower shrinkage potential
􀂃 Reduced steel corrosion
Silica fume, fly ash, and chemical admixtures were used in the HPC mix placed in the
bridge deck and barriers. The reinforcing steel was a low- carbon steel with a corrosion
threshold estimated to be five times higher than regular reinforcing steel.
Quality control and quality assurance programs were followed during construction to
collect and document information about HPC’s material characteristics and the
construction practices that should be followed. Test results and field conditions
confirmed the intended HPC properties were achieved on the majority of the bridge deck.
Challenges
The main challenges for the project were:
1. Ensuring aggregate properties and conditions at the batch plant were suitable for
producing HPC
2. Controlling air content loss of pumped concrete on the deck
3. A short project schedule that prevented refinement of the HPC mix and field
practices
4. Properly simulating the deck placement conditions due to the small size of the
demonstration slab
These challenges are typical for a pilot project and are considered to be project- specific
quality control. With the application of lessons learned on this pilot, we expect that future
HPC projects can successfully address these issues.
2
Conclusions
The use of HPC in bridges by other state DOTs with similar climate and service
conditions has reduced maintenance and increased the service life of structures. ( 1, 3 & 5)
Our conclusions and recommendations include:
􀂃 An inspection and evaluation program of the Sunshine Bridge deck should be
performed to monitor its performance.
􀂃 HPC can be implemented successfully on future bridge projects based on the test
results and experience gained from the Sunshine Bridge project to date.
􀂃 The upfront investment in dollars and resources can be justified when ADOT
considers the reduced maintenance and extended service life of bridge decks
using HPC technology.
􀂃 Using HPC technology raises the bar in Arizona design and construction
practices toward building bridges with better performance, longer service life,
and safer driving conditions for the public.
The successful implementation of HPC on the Sunshine Bridge, despite the challenges
encountered, is a clear indication that HPC can be used on bridges throughout Arizona
where there are wide temperature ranges including freezing conditions (- 18° to 109° F).
Figure 1. Aerial view of the completed Sunshine Bridge
3
II. INTRODUCTION
The Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT) has recently implemented research
on High Performance Concrete ( HPC) technology conducted under State Planning and
Research ( SPR) Project 538. ADOT chose the I- 40 Sunshine Bridge deck replacement
over the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail Road ( BNSF) railroad track as a pilot project
( Project H618301C: Sunshine Bridge) to test the suitability of HPC for use in Arizona.
A. Purpose
The purpose of this project is to demonstrate the feasibility of using HPC for bridge
decks. The work is also intended to gather information about HPC and the challenges
and obstacles that ADOT expects to encounter as it implements HPC on future bridge
projects throughout the state.
B. Scope of Work
The work presented in this report was authorized by ADOT’s Transportation
Research Center and was prepared in cooperation with the following groups:
1. ADOT Bridge Design Group
2. ADOT Holbrook District
3. Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA)
The project was done in two phases: design and construction. The work done in each
phase is outlined below.
1. Design Phase
a) Visited the Sunshine Bridge area and reviewed the capabilities of local
concrete suppliers to produce HPC. This included the concrete manufacturing
facilities their procedures, and quality control programs.
b) Performed laboratory tests on trial batches of concrete imported from the
Sunshine Bridge area and selected one that best meets project criteria.
c) Performed laboratory testing and evaluation of the selected concrete mixture
made in the trial batches.
d) Performed field trials on batches made at a ready mix plant near the Sunshine
Bridge to simulate job conditions such as concrete batching, travel time,
plastic and hardened properties.
e) Wrote HPC specifications for the Sunshine Bridge Project using local
materials. These specifications were included in the project bid documents.
4
2. Construction Phase
a) Attended pre- construction meetings to address HPC implementation issues
and project requirements.
b) Pre- qualified the contractor for HPC implementation issues such as concrete
materials, concrete supplier, mix design, concrete finishers, and other related
construction and quality assurance/ quality control, ( QA/ QC) programs critical
to HPC.
c) Monitored placement of an on- site HPC demonstration slab near the bridge by
the selected contractor to simulate actual job conditions such as concrete
batching, travel time, placement, finishing, curing, etc. The purpose of this
field placement was to evaluate the contractor’s procedures and crew
capabilities and also to use it as a training exercise and an opportunity to make
any project- specific adjustments to the specified installation procedures.
d) Monitored field inspection and testing program to verify HPC plastic
properties against project specifications.
The data collected from the Sunshine Bridge pilot will be used to evaluate the
feasibility of using HPC in areas of cold weather climate in Arizona.
C. Background
The Sunshine Bridge ( ADOT Bridge # 1390, Sunshine BNSF RR- OP WB,) is located
between Holbrook and Flagstaff on westbound I- 40 at mile post 237. The site is 5102
feet above sea level.
Figure 2. Bridge Elevation Profile
The bridge was built in 1968 by ADOT under project number I- IG- 40- 4( 52). It
consists of a 7.5 inch concrete deck supported by a three- span, five steel girder
system with a skew of 42° 55'. The total Bridge length is 182.5 feet. ( Reference
5
Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, and Premier Engineering Corporation bridge
construction plans ). ( 8) The project involved replacing the deteriorated concrete
bridge deck that is supported by steel girders.
ADOT selected the Sunshine Bridge as a pilot project to evaluate the use of HPC on
bridge decks in Arizona. The new bridge deck consists of a full thickness, cast- in-place
concrete deck using state- of- the- art HPC technology.
Figure 3. Bridge Plan
The Sunshine Bridge site presented the project team with several challenges:
1. Short construction season.-- The bridge is located in the Holbrook Construction
District where the typical construction season starts at the beginning of May and
ends in the middle of October. Construction on this project could not start until
May 2005.
2. All construction activities over the railroad tracks had to be completed by
September 30, 2005 -- The railroad’s traffic increases significantly in the last
three months of the year. BNSFRR does not allow any construction activities
within the railroad right- of- way during those months.
3. Equipment access to the bridge deck from the railroad level was not feasible. --
Because of railroad traffic and the 24- foot track clear zone, the contractor could
not use a crane and bucket system or similar approach to deliver concrete onto the
deck.
6
4. The contractor needed a minimum of 90- days. -- As the first ever implementation
of HPC in Arizona, the contractor required at least 90 days to develop the HPC
mix and make the necessary adjustments to meet project specifications. This left
little room for variance in the construction schedule.
Figure 4. Proposed Bridge Section
7
III. HPC IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
The design team and ADOT selected the following concrete mix for the bridge
deck:
1. An 8 ˝ full depth cast- in- place concrete deck.
2. A HPC mix according to the trial batches developed in the field.
3. A low carbon, low corrosion steel reinforcement ( MMFX Steel).
The combination of durable concrete and low corrosion steel enhances concrete
performance and extends the life of the bridge deck. HPC’s low permeability
reduces the penetration of chloride ions through the bridge deck. The low carbon
steel has a corrosion threshold estimated to be five times higher than standard
steel. This means the amount of chloride needed to initiate corrosion in the
reinforcing steel is not only increased, but the amount of chloride reaching the
steel has decreased.
A. Laboratory Trial Batches
Developing an HPC mix design starts with performing laboratory trials and
testing. A typical testing program consists of making batches of proposed mixes
using local materials and following project requirements. The batch testing for
this project was conducted at Rinker Materials ( Rinker) ready mix laboratory in
Phoenix, Arizona. See Figure 5.
Figure 5. Laboratory Trial Batches
8
Concrete materials including cement, fly ash, and aggregates, were imported from
the Sunshine Bridge area to Phoenix for the trial batches. Aggregates were tested
in the laboratory to verify gradation and other performance criteria according to
American Society for Testing and Materials ( ASTM) and ADOT standards.
To achieve the optimum HPC mix design, Jaber Engineering Consulting, Inc.
( JEC) made a total of six batches. Three batches had silica fume contents of 5 %
and three had silica fume contents of 7% by weight of cement. Each of these sets
with the same silica fume content was batched with a water- to- cementitious
material ratio ( w/ cm) of 0.37, 0.41, and 0.45. The w/ cm ratios were selected based
on the best information currently available. ( 3, 6)
Concrete from the trial batches was tested in both plastic and hardened states. In
the plastic state, slump, temperature, air content, and setting times were measured.
In the hardened state, samples were made to test the following properties:
1. Rapid chloride ion penetration ( permeability)
2. Length change ( shrinkage potential)
3. Resistance to freeze- thaw exposure ( freeze/ thaw)
4. Concrete compressive strength ( strength)
Test results indicated that a concrete mix design with 0.41 w/ cm ratio and 5 %
silica fume by weight of cement provided overall optimum performance against
project requirements ( see Figure A- 1, Appendix A):
1. Lowest possible chloride ion penetration: less than 1,200 coulombs.
2. Lowest shrinkage potential: less that 0.004 % for length change.
3. Best freeze- thaw resistance: a minimum of 85 % relative dynamic modulus.
4. Strength requirements: a minimum of 4500 psi at 28 days.
Using the laboratory test results in Appendix A, JEC developed a new concrete
mix whose criteria were designed to optimize performance. Those criteria
included: the lowest rapid chloride permeability, the highest freeze/ thaw
protection, and the required compressive strength range. The mix was field tested
at a concrete ready mix plant close to the project site. The selected mix design and
proportions are presented in Figure 6.
9
Concrete Materials Weights
Portland cement, ( lbs) 450
Fly ash, ( lbs) 110
Silica fume, ( lbs) 23
Fine aggregates, ( lbs) 1181
Coarse aggregates, ( lbs) 1765
Water, ( lbs) 250
Water Reducer, ( oz) 40
Superplasticizers, ( oz) 18
Retarder, ( oz) 20
Air Entraining Agent, ( oz) 6
w/ cm ratio 0.43
Paste content, (%) 27%
Air content, (%) 6.5%
Figure 6. Selected Mix Design
B. Developing the HPC Mix in the Field
Once the optimum mix design for the concrete was achieved at the laboratory, it
was necessary to duplicate these results at the ready mix plant. At the plant the
concrete was tested for both its hardened and plastic properties to ensure that the
laboratory results could be repeated on a large scale field production. The ability
to project results from the laboratory trials to a broad field application requires
that the field trial batches be run using concrete material economically available
to the contractors.
1. Selecting a Local Contractor
The design team was faced with a challenge of finding a ready mix supplier and a
plant within a reasonable distance of the project. The project is located 40 miles
from Flagstaff and 25 miles from Joseph City, Arizona, along I- 40.
In cooperation with two ready mix suppliers, Rinker and Hanson Aggregates, the
design team selected Quality Ready Mix ( QRM), a subsidiary of Rinker in Joseph
City, Arizona, to produce the field trial batches. The QRM plant, approximately
25 miles east of the Sunshine Bridge, was the closest ready mix plant to the
project.
10
2. Batch Design
To demonstrate the improvement in concrete properties of HPC over a standard
bridge deck mix, the design team elected to batch an ADOT Class S concrete mix,
normally used by ADOT in bridge deck applications, for comparison.
On October 6, 2004, QRM batched a three cubic- yard load of ADOT Class S
4,500 psi concrete mix and a three cubic- yard load of HPC mix using the mix
proportions developed in the laboratory trials ( See Figure 7). The aggregate used
in these trials was a river- rock type round aggregate from the Cottonwood Pit.
The concrete was centrally batched and discharged into trucks. To simulate and
monitor concrete properties during travel time, the truck drum mixed at travel
speed and was held at the plant for the anticipated travel time of one hour.
The concrete was tested at three stages: 1) right after batching; 2) during
simulated truck travel time and; 3) at the end of the one hour hold period. The
concrete's plastic properties, slump, air, and temperature were measured at the
three stages and the results are shown in Figure B- 1, Appendix B.
Figure 7. Testing HPC Trial Batches at the Ready Mix
3. Initial Sample Test Results
Concrete samples were cast at the batch plant and tested in the laboratory to
measure the hardened concrete properties of the HPC mix against those of the
ADOT Class S control mix.
The chloride permeability for the HPC was an average of 768 coulombs compared
to 2610 coulombs for the control mix. The 70% reduction in coulombs is due to
11
the reduced permeability of the HPC over the ADOT Class S control mix. This
reflects HPC’s increased ability to resist chloride ion migration.
The HPC had an air void system with paste content of 23.5 percent, compared to
31.6 for the control mix. Since most of the concrete shrinkage comes from the
cement paste, ( cement and water), lowering paste content reduces the shrinkage
potential of concrete.( 2) Air void systems for both mixes were sound and were
expected to provide the concrete with durability under freeze- thaw conditions.
Details of the laboratory test results are presented in Figures B- 2 through B- 9 in
Appendix B.
C. Developing HPC Specifications
ADOT has used silica fume/ HPC as a repair overlay on other bridge decks;
however, the Sunshine Bridge is the first bridge deck in Arizona that uses HPC
for the full deck. ADOT's current Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
Construction does not have provisions for HPC so the design team developed a
special provisional specification to include in the bidding and construction
documents.
Generally, there are two main approaches to specifying HPC for bridge deck
construction:
1. Performance Specification: Specify the concrete performance criteria
required for the bridge deck and require the contractor to achieve those
criteria.
2. Prescriptive Specification: Require the contractor to follow certain
procedures and use specific materials and/ or proportion methods to achieve
the performance criteria intended for the project. The contractor is not
responsible for ensuring concrete performance properties are achieved
provided the specification requirements are followed.
The performance specification is used when the contractors expected to bid on the
project have prior experience with HPC. The owner normally relies on contractor
knowledge and experience to achieve the required performance criteria.
The prescriptive specification is used when the contracting community has
limited knowledge and experience in working with HPC and may have difficulty
achieving the desired results.
Based on the preliminary research work performed in the field and laboratory, the
design team and ADOT selected the prescriptive specification approach for this
project.
12
The following factors played a significant role in selecting the prescriptive
specification approach.
1. First full bridge deck. – ADOT's previous use of HPC was limited to overlays;
this is the first project to use HPC for the full deck and traffic barriers.
2. Lack of experience by local contractors and suppliers. – There was a limited
number of contractors and concrete suppliers in the project area with adequate
experience in producing and constructing with HPC.
3. Potential cost advantage of prescriptive specification. - Contractors would
increase their project bid because of the perceived risk they would face in
using an unfamiliar product.
4. Project construction schedule. – The short construction schedule allowed
minimal time for the contractor to develop a concrete mix for the project that
was based on performance.
D. Project Bidding
The project was advertised; bids were opened on March 25, 2005. Vastco
Construction Inc. ( Vastco), headquartered in Flagstaff, was the successful bidder.
Rinker won the ready mix supply contract. ADOT’s Holbrook District managed
the project. ADOT gave Vastco a notice to proceed on April 15, 2005.
E. Pre- Construction Work
A day- long project partnering meeting with representatives from all firms and
agencies involved in this project was held on May 19, 2005. The challenges of
implementing HPC were discussed in detail, with input from Vastco, ADOT, and
the design team. The design team also presented a schedule of milestones
showing the time and sequence of significant events that would lead to a
successful deck placement. ( See Figure C- 1, Appendix C.)
A quality control plan was also developed at the partnering meeting that detailed
the steps in the concrete deck placement process from concrete production at the
batch plant through final concrete curing. The plan, shown in Figure D- 4,
Appendix D, outlined each project member’s role, duties and responsibilities
during the deck placement, including the responsibility of accepting each truck
load of concrete before placement.
1. Trial Batches
Rinker elected to supply the HPC from its Flagstaff plant. Vastco/ Rinker made
five trial batches between May 18 and June 29, 2005. None of the trial batches
achieved the desired field properties for slump, air and w/ cm ratio. ( Details
of the trial batches are presented in Figure C- 2, Appendix C.)
13
a. Discussion and Comments
ADOT and the design team were at the Rinker ready mix plant during the
trial batches. Concrete mix, materials, and proportions were reviewed to
verify compliance with project specifications. Concerns centered on the
aggregate properties in the failed batches.
The coarse aggregates used in the trial batches were 100% crushed basalt
aggregates. The basalt appeared to be a mix of approximately 40% porous
and absorptive rock and 60 % harder, angular rock.
The aggregates appeared to have varied moisture conditions and seemed to
be below the Saturated Surface Dry ( SSD) conditions specified for the
project, when visually examined at the stock pile. The low SSD conditions
were later confirmed in lab tests performed by Rinker.
Because of its low and varied moisture conditions, the aggregate absorbed
large portions of the mixing water during the initial stages of batching.
This caused water demand to increase and made it difficult for the
concrete mixture to achieve the required slump. Air content was also
variable and unstable when the slump and water demand fluctuated as a
result of the aggregate moisture conditions.
It was clear that the variations in aggregate moisture and the below- SSD
conditions of the aggregate caused many of the trial batches to fail. The
angularity of the aggregate also increased water demand compared to the
mix tested during the trial batches made at QRM on October 6, 2004. The
mix design proportions specified in the project documents were based on
trial batches using the Cottonwood Pit aggregates. The aggregate used by
Rinker for the project was from the Cherry Pit.
Because of its angular shape, the Cherry Pit coarse aggregate has higher
water demand compared to the river rock type round aggregate from the
Cottonwood Pit. A summary of the aggregate moisture properties by
source is shown in Figure 8. Detailed properties are presented in Figure A-
6 in Appendix A and Figure C- 5 in Appendix C.
14
Aggregates Absorption
Aggregate Source Application Sand Rock
Cottonwood Pit Trial batches, laboratory and field 0.97 0.73
Cherry Pit Project batches and bridge deck 2.20 1.60
Figure 8. Aggregate Moisture Properties Comparison
Vastco and Rinker requested that ADOT and the design team make the
following changes:
i. Modify the project requirement for accepting the HPC compressive
strength from 28 days to 56 days. Rationale: The fly ash in the mix
will continue to gain strength well beyond 28 days. Moving the
compressive strength from 28 to 56 days will discourage the
contractor from trying to increase cement content to achieve higher
strength at 28 days.
Delaying concrete strength gain to later ages ( by reducing cement
content and adding fly ash) will generally make concrete less
susceptible to cracking ( 3). ADOT and the design team approved
this change.
ii. Increase the specified maximum concrete temperature at
placement from 80° to 85° F. The purpose for this request is to
avoid using ice in the batching process. It is generally difficult to
control w/ cm ratio when ice is added to the mix.
In the interest of maintaining and controlling the w/ cm ratio, the
design team did not object to an increase in the maximum allowed
concrete temperature on deck from 80° to 85° F. The potential 5°
F increase in concrete placement temperature has far less impact
on the quality of concrete when compared to the potential of higher
w/ cm ratio ( 2, 6).
iii. Increase fly ash content from the specified 110 lbs to 165 lbs. The
purpose of the additional fly ash is to increase the paste content in
the concrete mixture and overcome the low slump and air
instability caused by the low and variable moisture conditions in
the aggregate.
To accommodate this field condition, ADOT and the design team
allowed Rinker to proceed with the fly ash increase provided all
other concrete plastic properties were maintained.
15
b. Adjustments & Recommendations
To help achieve the required HPC mix design, ADOT and the design team
approved the contractor- proposed changes and made the following
recommendations:
i. The aggregate needed to be at SSD conditions 24 hours before
batching the HPC, as required by Project Specification’s Section
1006- 2.03( B) and ( C). Project specifications were developed by
the design team in tandem with ADOT’s Contracts and
Specifications Section.
ii. The silica fume content should be adjusted from 25 to 30 pounds.
iii. The HPC mix w/ cm ratio should comply with the project
requirement of minimum 0.40 and a maximum of 0.42.
iv. The contractor should produce additional batches incorporating
these recommended adjustments to ensure consistent concrete
production.
ADOT and the design team approved those changes and recommendations
to accommodate the limitations of Rinker’s materials, mainly the
aggregate's increased water demand and its moisture conditions at the
plant.
Using the approved changes, Rinker made trial batches # 6 and # 7 on
Wednesday July 6, 2005. Batch # 6 was not successful. Batch # 7 had a
0.402 w/ cm ratio, an 85° temperature, and an air content of 4.6% at 50
minutes after the concrete was batched so the project team considered it
tentatively successful, but saw that further refinement would be needed
during the required field demonstration. ( See Figure C- 2 for details of the
tests on the trial batches.)
3. Field Demonstration
Project specifications required the contractor to perform a field demonstration
of the concrete deck placement. A successful demonstration would simulate
field conditions anticipated during actual deck placement. The specification
would allow the contractor the option to use the bridge approach slab or other
slabs at locations close to the project for the demonstration. Vastco elected to
use the approach slab.
a. Slab Demonstration # 1
The first field demonstration took place on August 5, 2005 using the east
approach slab The slab was approximately 46' wide by 15' long: too small
for a Bidwell finishing machine to be used. Concrete was delivered to the
16
site in three truckloads. Placement using a 42' Schwing pump began at
2: 27 a. m. and concluded by 3: 05 a. m. The contractor used a portable
vibratory screed to finish the concrete surface ( See Figure 9). Details of
placement locations and properties of the concrete are presented in Figures
C- 4a and C- 4b in Appendix C.
The first demonstration was considered unsuccessful as the project crew
was unable to satisfactorily place and finish the slab. The design team
requested a second slab placement demonstration to ensure that the
contractor could follow proper HPC techniques prior to actual deck
placement.
Figure 9. Slab Demonstration No. 1
b. Slab Demonstration # 2
The second field demonstration took place on August 18, 2005 using the
west approach slab. The slab was similar in size to the east approach slab
but was too small for finishing machines to be used.
The air loss encountered through the pump remained unresolved in the
second slab demonstration. As with the first demonstration, the crew did
not follow proper HPC techniques in either placing or finishing the slab.
Therefore, the slab demonstration was considered unsuccessful.
Reference Figure C- 3 Appendix C for demonstration slab test results.
17
F. HPC Deck Placement
Despite the fact that both field slab demonstrations failed to meet project
specifications and therefore did not fully meet with ADOT's and the design team's
approval, the need to complete all construction activities on the bridge by the end
of September 2005 remained. To meet the BNSFRR deadline, ADOT allowed
Vastco to proceed with deck placement. The deck placement was scheduled for
2: 00 a. m. August 24, 2005.
A pre- placement meeting of the design team, ADOT, Vastco and Rinker was held
on August 22, 2005 in Flagstaff. The project team reviewed the deck placement
procedure, the quality control and the quality assurance plans that were developed
during the partnering workshop ( See Figure D- 4, Appendix D).
Because of site conditions and traffic access restrictions, the contractor used two
concrete pumps. Pump No. 1, a 52- meter Putzmeister, ( M52), was set up on the
east end of the deck. Pump No. 2, a 45- meter Schwing ( M45), was set up on the
west end of the bridge deck.
Concrete placement started on the east end using pump No. 1. At approximately
the midpoint of the bridge deck, beginning with load no. 12, concrete placement
was continued from the midpoint to the west end using pump No. 2. The Deck
Placement Schematic Layout is shown in Figure D- 5, Appendix D.
1. At The Batch Plant
QA/ QC tests were carried out by the project team at the batch plant and on site.
Vastco and Rinker’s QC program included:
a. Measuring concrete materials' weights
b. Measuring the moisture conditions of both the coarse and fine aggregate
c. Testing concrete properties – slump, air content, and temperature- for
compliance with specifications before the concrete trucks left for the site
Both ADOT and JEC performed a QA program to verify the information
measured and tested in the contractors’ QC program. The QA program included:
a. Batch plant observation during concrete production to verify that concrete
batches met the approved concrete mix design. The observation was
performed by a Registered Professional Engineer who documented
concrete batch weights, moisture conditions, and calculated the w/ cm
ratio. The purpose of the w/ cm calculation was to inform ADOT to alert
the contractor should the w/ cm ratio exceed the maximum of 0.42 allowed
in the specifications. Figure D- 2, Appendix D includes concrete batch
18
weights and their variance from the proposed concrete mix design and a
tabulation of the w/ cm ratio for each load. A graphic representation of the
w/ cm ratio for each concrete load is presented in Figure D- 3, Appendix D.
b. Testing of concrete properties- slump, air content, and temperature- for
compliance with specifications and to confirm testing performed by the
contractor before concrete trucks were allowed to travel to the site.
The slab demonstrations showed that air loss between the batch plant and the deck
was 3.38 % during the first demonstration and 4.06 % during the second
demonstration, an average of 3.72 % air loss for both placements. See Figure C- 3
Appendix C. Based on this information, and to achieve the specified 6.5 % air
content at placement, the project team agreed that concrete would be allowed to
proceed to the job site only when the following plastic properties were achieved
in the concrete batched at the plant:
a. Minimum air content of 10 %
b. Minimum 9 inch slump
c. Maximum temperature 80° F
The higher- than- specified air content was permitted at the batch plant to allow for
the anticipated loss during transportation and pumping. The higher than specified
slump was deemed necessary to maintain air in the concrete. Concrete drivers
were not permitted to add water to the concrete mixer until the concrete was
completely discharged.
The first concrete truck was batched at 1: 02 a. m. and the last at 7: 00 a. m. Twenty
one trucks delivered 206 cubic yards of concrete.
2. Arrival of Concrete On- Site
Two testing stations were set up in the median approximately 100 feet ahead of
the concrete pump on both sides of the bridge deck - Test Station 1A was at the
median entrance ramp east of the bridge. Test Station 1B was at the median
entrance ramp west of the bridge. For details on testing stations and locations see
Figure D- 5, Appendix D.
On arrival at the testing stations, the concrete was tested for slump, air content,
and temperature by Rinker's QC technicians and ADOT inspectors before
proceeding to the pump. Any adjustments to the concrete plastic properties were
made using chemical admixtures such as air entraining agents or superplasticizers.
The concrete was allowed to proceed to the pump only when slump was at least
six inches and air content was a minimum of 9%
19
3. Concrete Placement
Actual concrete placement on the deck started with the discharge of concrete
truck load no. 1 at 2: 37 a. m. and ended when truck load no. 21 was completely
discharged at 8: 10 a. m. A total of 206 cubic yards were placed at a rate of
approximately 37 cubic yards per hour.
Placement started on the east end where concrete was pumped on deck through
pump No. 1. The first two trucks were tested before placement and showed air
contents of 9.5 % and 8.8 % respectively before pumping. Air content for the
second truck's load was measured at 2.5 % after pumping showing an air loss of
6.6 % through the pump. Vastco and Rinker took quick measures to reduce air
loss through the pump, including adjusting pump line configuration, reducing
pump pressure, installing an S- pipe at the end of the pump hose, and even laying
the pump hose flat on the deck. Note S- pipe use in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Pumping Concrete Using an “ S” Pipe
The measured air content on the deck for the first eight truck loads ( 80 cubic
yards of concrete) remained below the required 5.5 % minimum, despite all
attempts to control air loss through the pump. Details of air content loss are
presented in Figure D- 1, Appendix D. ADOT Inspector Denise Hamill made a
field sketch showing the approximate placement of every truck's load placed on
the deck. The hand sketch is presented in Figure D- 7, Appendix D.
When concrete had been placed on the eastern half of the bridge, the trucks
switched to delivering the concrete to the west end where concrete pump No. 2
had been set up. The concrete was checked at testing station 1- B at the west
20
entrance ramp and adjusted when needed for slump and air content. Trucks were
allowed to proceed to the pump only when slump, air content, and temperature
met project specifications.
4. Concrete Testing and Sampling
Concrete was tested and sampled by ADOT, Rinker, and JEC. Samples were
taken from concrete placed on the deck at the end of the pump hose. The fresh
concrete was transported off- deck to the west end of the bridge using
wheelbarrows traveling on wooden planks set across the deck's reinforcing steel.
Test samples were cast and cured on- site for the following purposes:
a. Contractor confirmation of Compressive Strength. Rinker made one
set of 6” x12” concrete cylinders for every 20 yards of concrete
placed on- deck. The cylinders were tested in the laboratory for
compressive strength. Testing and sampling of concrete was made
by ACI- certified field technicians.
b. ADOT Confirmation of Compressive Strength. ADOT made one set
of 6” x12” concrete cylinders for every 20 yards of concrete placed
on- deck. The cylinders were tested at ADOT's Materials Laboratory
for compressive strength. ADOT compressive strength test results
were used for concrete acceptance according to project
specifications. The testing and sampling of concrete was performed
by ADOT- certified field technicians.
c. JEC Confirmation of HPC properties. JEC retained Western
Technology, Inc. ( WTI) of Phoenix, Arizona to take test samples.
The purpose of this testing was to verify and document HPC
properties. The laboratory tested chloride permeability, freeze- thaw
resistance, scaling resistance, modulus of elasticity and shrinkage
potential. Test samples were cured on- site for 24 hours and later
transported to WTI’s laboratory in Phoenix for curing.
A summary of the field testing and sampling of the concrete is presented in Figure
D- 1, Appendix D.
21
5. Concrete Finishing:
Vastco used a Bidwell finishing machine mounted across the bridge deck on a
fixed railing with double rotating augers and a roller screed. After concrete was
discharged on- deck and vibrated, the roller screed made one pass across the deck,
followed by a paver pan to drag- close the surface. See Figure 11.
Figure 11. Concrete Finishing Machine
Minimal surface finishing was performed to avoid cracking the HPC. Surfaces
between the machine rail and the furthest reach of the roller screed were hand-finished
as shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12. Finishing Areas Next to the Machine Railing
22
6. Concrete Protection and Curing
Project specifications required the contractor to “ begin curing the concrete surface
no later than 10 minutes after it is finished” and that “ the finishing machine
cannot be more than 10 feet away from the finished surface.” To accomplish this,
Vastco set up a working bridge traveling behind the finishing machine and used it
to place the curing sheets as shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13. Working Bridge to Lay Down Curing Sheets
The burlene sheets used for curing are made of burlap on one side and plastic on
the other, with holes in the sheets to allow added water for curing pass- through.
The contractor placed the burlene across the entire width of the bridge deck.
Soon after the burlene sheets were laid on the concrete surface they were wetted
down to keep them in place as shown in Figure 14. Wet curing of both the
concrete deck and the barriers continued for 14 days which provided the water
needed for cement hydration.
23
Figure 14. Wetting Down Curing Sheets
7. Laboratory Test Results
Because the project was designed with a prescriptive specification approach, the
contractor was not required to meet any HPC performance requirements except
for compressive strength. Therefore, a special concrete testing program was
authorized by ADOT and carried out by JEC. The purpose of the laboratory
testing program was to measure the performance properties of the HPC placed on
the Sunshine Bridge deck and confirm compliance with project requirements.
Samples were tested at WTI in Phoenix and at Construction Testing Laboratories
( CTL) in Skokie, Illinois. A summary of all laboratory test results and reports is
included in Figure E- 1a, Appendix E. Results of compressive strength tests from
ADOT, Rinker and WTI are summarized in Figure E- 1b, Appendix E.
Figures B- 2, E- 1a and E- 1b compare the properties of the HPC placed on the
bridge deck to an ADOT class S mix. The rapid chloride permeability ( RCP) of
the bridge deck concrete was reduced three fold by using HPC instead of class S
concrete. RCP results were 768 and 984 coulombs for HPC compared with 2610
for class S concrete.
24
25
IV. CHALLENGES AND LESSONS LEARNED
The Sunshine Bridge pilot project was an excellent test case for using HPC
technology on Arizona bridges in freeze- thaw environments. The obstacles and
challenges the project team faced presented everyone the opportunity to gain
knowledge and experience in bridge deck construction.
The following lessons were part of the learning process that came out of the
Sunshine Bridge pilot project.
1. Aggregates Quality and Conditions
Aggregate properties such as shape, absorption, water demand, and moisture
conditions at batching time are major factors that need to be addressed when
HPC is specified on a project. The coarse and fine aggregates proved to have the
most significant impact on getting the HPC mix to meet field performance
requirements.
A specific QC program for aggregates needs to be established by the supplier and
approved by ADOT and the design team. The QC program should be a pre-requisite
of any successful HPC project.
2. Batching Based on w/ cm Ratio:
Ready mix suppliers in Arizona need to make the transition from their current
practice of concrete batching based on slump to batching based on w/ cm ratio.
HPC in bridge applications focuses on durability that is associated with the w/ cm
ratio. To meet requirements, coarse and fine aggregate should be at SSD weights
at batching time, and moisture of the aggregate should be regularly measured
during batching to calculate and confirm the w/ cm ratio.
3. Concrete Transportation
Concrete slump and air content at the batch plant may need to be higher than
what is required at placement to compensate for losses during transportation and
pumping. Concrete properties change during transport and since many bridges are
long distances away from ready mix plants, maintaining the concrete's properties
during travel is a critical issue that requires special planning and design
considerations. Performing trial batches at the batch plant is the best way to
address this issue.
For the Sunshine Bridge a minimum of 9 inch slump and a minimum of 10 % air
content were required at the batch plant to allow for air losses during travel and
passage through the pump.
26
4. Field Demonstration
Performing field demonstrations of concrete placement is an essential step in a
successful HPC project. The demonstration allows the project team members to
practice all steps of the concrete placement and identify and solve problems ahead
of the actual deck placement. The placement slab area should be large enough to
allow for placement, finishing machine, and finishing techniques to be
demonstrated. Time should be allowed for conducting multiple field trials and
demonstrations should they be needed.
All team members should be present to provide their input on the process and
reinforce their role during deck placement. It is critical that the crew performing
the field demonstration be the same as the one that will perform the actual deck
placement. The demonstration should cover all aspects of deck placement
including travel time, pumping, finishing, curing, and other site- specific
requirements.
Future HPC projects should allocate a separate pay item for a slab demonstration.
The pay item can be allocated in two ways:
• Pay directly for the cost of all materials, labor, and equipment for the
demonstration.
• Pay according to size of the demonstration slab. Payment should be for
successful placement only.
5. Concrete Pumping
The amount of concrete air content loss through pumping must be determined
through trial batches and field demonstrations before deck placement. Concrete
properties must be measured on- deck to see if they meet acceptance criteria,
because the properties of the concrete ultimately placed and finished on- deck are
the ones that determine a bridge deck's performance.
Air content in concrete should be increased before pumping in the amount pre-determined
during earlier trial batches and field demonstrations to allow for air
losses through the pump, so the concrete placed on- deck meets project
requirements.
To compensate for air losses during transportation and through the pump, the
concrete for the Sunshine Bridge was batched at higher levels of air content than
the project- specified on- deck air content of 6.5% ± 1.5 %. Concrete was batched
at 9- 10% to allow for an anticipated air loss of 3.72% measured during the field
demonstrations. Air content impacts concrete performance in the following
ways:
27
• Increased air content improves concrete workability.
• Entraining a good air- voids system in concrete helps protect it against
freeze/ thaw damage and increases its durability under severe exposure
conditions.
• Concrete strength is reduced when air content in concrete is increased.
When placing the concrete by pumping, the contractor should use the same pump
used for establishing the air loss during trial batches and slab demonstration.
6. Wet Curing
Future HPC bridge project specifications should be written to alert the contractor
to the importance of wet curing and its impact on the construction schedule.
Membrane curing is the common practice for bridge decks in Arizona. HPC
requires wet curing for at least 7- 14 days.
7. Constructability
There were no real constructability issues in using HPC on the Sunshine Bridge.
Although there were difficulties in developing the concrete mix at the batch plant
and controlling air content loss through the concrete pump, most of the problems
encountered were related to quality control issues that can be readily addressed on
future projects.
The impacts of wet curing on the schedule must be addressed early. Wet curing
for 7- 14 days is required for optimal performance of HPC.
Testing needs will decrease as knowledge is gained. The concrete sampling and
testing program was extensive and unique to this project because of ADOT’s
objective to establish a base reference for HPC performance. The extent of HPC
testing programs on future HPC projects may be reduced as more information
about HPC technology becomes available.
8. Safety
An HPC bridge deck requires less frequent maintenance than a conventional
concrete bridge deck. Reduced maintenance results in fewer accidents, injuries,
and fatalities. FHWA statistics on the relationship between
maintenance/ construction and the number of accidents and deaths show that the
U. S. has:
• One work zone fatality every 7 hours ( 3 a day)
• One work zone injury every 15 minutes ( 96 a day)
• A financial loss of $ 3 billion from work zone crashes in 2001
28
For more information go to the following link:
http:// safety. fhwa. dot. gov/ wz/ nwzaw_ events/ factsheet04. htm
9. Team Members Feedback
Feedback from project team members should be considered for future HPC
projects. In order to get the input from project team on the implementation of
HPC on the Sunshine Bridge project, a meeting of all participants was held on
February 7, 2006. Comments from the meeting are presented in Figure D- 7,
Appendix D.
29
V. CONCLUSION:
The test results and field experience suggest that using HPC on bridge decks in
Arizona is feasible and can result in improved concrete properties. In the early
stages of using HPC on bridge decks cost increases can be expected as bridge
contractors develop experience and knowledge in HPC technology. These costs
will decrease as a result of more competitive pricing when more HPC projects are
constructed and more contractors become familiar with HPC.
The design team recommends that an inspection and evaluation program of the
Sunshine Bridge deck be performed to monitor HPC and bridge performance
establishing the benefit of an HPC deck compared to other bridge decks in
Arizona.
Based on the testing, field experience, and lessons learned on this project, the
design team recommends that more bridge decks in Arizona be constructed using
HPC. However, further field observations are recommended to confirm field
performance and establish a base line for concrete performance. We recommend
that a five- year field monitoring program be initiated to accomplish this goal.
The upfront investment in dollars and resources is justified when the reduced
maintenance and extended service life of bridge decks using HPC technology are
considered.
30
31
VI. REFERENCES
1. Zia, Paul Michael Leming, and Shuaib H. Ahmad. High Performance Concretes.
A State of The Art Report. Strategic Highway Research Program. Washington
D. C.: Federal Highway Administration, 1991.
2. Kraus, Paul, Ernest A. Rogalla. Transverse Cracking in Newly Constructed
Bridge Decks. NCHRP Report 380. Washington D. C.: Transportation Research
Board, 1996.
3. Bridge Views Newsletter Compilation, Issues Nos. 1- 38. Federal Highway
Administration, National Concrete Bridge Council. January 1999 through April
2005.
4. Kriesel, Roxanne, Mark Snyder and Catherine E. French. Freeze- Thaw Durability
of High Strength Concrete. Report 1998- 10 St. Paul, Minn.: Minnesota Dept. of
Transportation, 1997.
5. Jaber, Tarif M. State of the Art Report High Performance Concrete for Bridges in
the State of Arizona. ATRC Report SPR- 538. Phoenix, Ariz.: Arizona Department
of Transportation, 2004.
6. Holland, Terrance C. Silica Fume User’s Manual. FHWA- IF- 05- 016Washington,
D. C.: Federal Highway Administration, April 2005.
7. Concrete in Practice- 21, Loss of Air Content in Pumped Concrete. Springfield
Maryland: National Ready Mix Concrete Association, 1992.
8. Flagstaff- Holbrook Highway ( I- 40), Sunshine BNSFRR- OP WB 1390, Project
Number AC- IBRC- 040- D( 016) A. Tracs No. H6183 01C. Project Construction
Plans, Premier Engineering Corporation, Tempe, AZ; 2005Premier Engineering
Corporation Sunshine Bridge construction plans, 2005 pp 38, 39.
9. “ Evaporation chart, ACI Figure 2.1.5 Effect of concrete and air temperature,
relative humidity, and wind speed on the rate of evaporation of surface moisture
from concrete.” in Hot Weather Concreting, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice.
Farmington Hills, Michigan: American Concrete Institute, 2005.
APPENDIX A
Laboratory Trial Batches
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Figure A- 1 Summary of Laboratory Trial Batches
2. Figure A- 2 Summary of Laboratory Test Results
3. Figure A- 3 Compressive Strength Graph
4. Figure A- 4 Shrinkage Potential Graph
5. Figure A- 5 Setting Times Graph
6. Figure A- 6 Aggregates Test Report
7. Figure A- 7 Rapid Chloride Permeability and Freeze Thaw Resistance Report
August 3, 2004 Summary of Laboratory Trial Batches
For the Sunshine Bridge
Date Batched
Silica Fume Percent ( 1)
Water Cementitious Ratio ( w/ cm) 0.37 0.41 0.45 0.37 0.41 0.45
Mix Designation L- 203 L- 204 L- 205 L- 206 L- 207 L- 208
Portland Cement, ( lbs) 505 498 492 510 505 504
Fly Ash Class F, ( lbs) 109 108 106 110 109 109
Silica Fume, ( lbs) 25 24 24 38 38 38
Fine Aggregates, ( lbs) 1160 1117 1078 1160 1122 1094
Coarse Aggregates, ( lbs) 1739 1676 1618 1740 1684 1640
Water, ( lbs) 237 260 281 244 268 293
Water Reducer, ( oz) 5 5 6 8 6 5
Superplasticizer, ( oz) 38 38 37 40 39 39
Air Entrainig Agent, ( oz) 70 19 0 53 13 52
Materials Weights, ( lbs) 3775 3683 3599 3802 3726 3677
Total Cementitious, ( lbs) 639 630 623 658 652 651
Percent Fly Ash 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22%
Percent Silica Fume ( 1) 5% 5% 5% 7% 7% 7%
Paste Content, percent 27.2 28.4 29.5 28.1 29.4 30.9
Total Water, ( gal) 28.5 31.1 33.6 29.2 32.2 35.1
Batch Properties
Concrete Temperature, F° 89° 89° 90° 85° 86° 86°
Ambient Temperature, F° 79° 80° 80° 84° 85° 86°
Slump, ( in) initial 1.75 4.5 7.75 2.0 5.50 7.75
Slump, ( in) after super 5.25 5.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 7.25
Air Content, percent 5.3% 6.0% 7.9% 4.5% 5.5% 6.2%
Initial Set, ( hrs) - 8.3 7.2 9.8 7.0 7.9
( 1) By weight of cement
Materials Properties
Aggregates Fine Coarse
Absorption % 1.34 0.74
Specific Gravity 2.61 2.61
Fineness Modulus 2.75 -
Materials Sources
Cement Type I- II Phoenix
Fly Ash Class F Cholla
Aggregates Snowflake
Water Reducer Master Builder, MBL 80
Super Plasticizer Master Builder, Rheo 1000
Air Entraining Agent Master Builder, Micro Air
Tuesday, July 20, 2004 Tuesday, July 27, 2004
5% 7%
Figure A- 1
September 28, 2004 Summary of Laboratory Test Results
For Laboratory Trial Batches
L- 203 L- 204 L- 205 L- 206 L- 207 L- 208
1 2,370 1,850 1,540 1,790 1,550 1,370
3 4,900 3,580 2,480 4,080 2,820 3,020
7 6,030 4,360 3,160 4,570 3,830 3,680
14 7,210 5,360 3,970 6,210 5,380 4,930
28 8,380 6,100 4,670 7,020 6,560 5,550
56 9,010 7,080 4,960 7,340 6,550 6,080
90 9,670 7,300 5,290 - 6,720 6,320
L- 203 L- 204 L- 205 L- 206 L- 207 L- 208
4 - 0.00933 - 0.01167 - 0.00933 - - -
7 - 0.01600 - 0.01567 - 0.01933 0.00300 - 0.00233 - 0.00300
14 - 0.01700 - 0.01767 - 0.02333 - 0.00567 - 0.00833 - 0.01033
28 - 0.02700 - 0.02900 - 0.03500 - 0.01200 - 0.01400 - 0.01933
56 - 0.03533 - 0.03733 - 0.04400 - 0.02633 - 0.02700 - 0.03167
L- 203 L- 204 L- 205 L- 206 L- 207 L- 208
A 540 820 880 565 690 850
B 755 985 1215 660 1110 1265
Average 648 903 1048 613 900 1058
L- 203 L- 204 L- 205 L- 206 L- 207 L- 208
A 101 102 95 108 108 103
B 102 104 100 95 101 103
Average 102 103 98 102 105 103
Age ( days)
Compressive Strength, ASTM C- 39, psi
Age ( days)
Shrinkage Potential, ( Length change) ASTM C- 157
Sample
Rapid Chloride Ion Permeability, ( Coulomb) ASTM C- 1202
Sample
Freeze Thaw Resistance Test, ( Durability Factor) ASTM C- 666 Method B
Figure A- 2
September 28, 2004
Figure A- 3
Compressive Strength for Laboratory Trial Batches
Sunshine Bridge
L- 204
L- 203
L- 206
L- 207
L- 208
L- 205
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 91
Age ( days)
Strength ( psi)
September 28, 2004
Figure A- 4
Shrinkage Potential for laboratory Trial Batches
Sunshine Bridge
L- 204
L- 205
L- 208
L- 203
L- 206
L- 207
- 0.05000
- 0.04500
- 0.04000
- 0.03500
- 0.03000
- 0.02500
- 0.02000
- 0.01500
- 0.01000
- 0.00500
0.00000
0.00500
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56
Age ( days)
Change (%)
August 3, 2004
Figure A- 5
Setting Times for Laboratory Trial Batches
Sunshine Bridge
L- 207 L- 205 L- 208 L- 204 L- 206
0
500
1,000
5.70 6.10 6.50 6.90 7.30 7.70 8.10 8.50 8.90 9.30 9.70 10.10
Time ( hours)
Strength ( psi)
No set time for L- 203
Figure A- 6
Figure A- 6
Figure A- 6
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering
Research Group on Cement and Concrete
October 20, 2004
Tarif M. Jaber, P. E.
Jaber Engineering Consulting, Inc.
10827 E. Butherus Drive
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
Dear Mr. Jaber:
The present report summarizes the results of the testing carried out on concrete samples
as part of the contract referred to in Offer of services No 04- 027. In this work order, six
concrete mixtures were delivered to the University of Sherbrooke to assess frost
durability and rapid chloride- ion permeability of high- performance concrete.
Results
Rapid chloride- ion permeability ( Coulombs) according to ASTM C1202
Concrete Sample ( a) Sample ( b) Mean
203 540 755 650
204 820 985 900
205 880 1215 1050
206 565 660 610
207 690 1110 900
208 850 1265 1060
Note : Samples ( a) were machined from the bottom part of the 100 mm × 200 mm cylinders,
whereas samples ( b) were machined from the top part.
In total, 12 cylinders and 12 prisms were received sealed in plastic bags with humid rags. The
cylinders were preserved in a moisture room until the age of 56 days, whereas the prisms were
stored in lime- saturated water for one week before starting the freeze- thaw testing.
According to Table 1, concrete mixtures 203, 204, 206 and 207 have “ very low “ chloride- ion
permeability levels. For mixtures 205 and 208, the chloride- ion permeability level is considered
as “ low”.
Figure A- 7
Page 1 of 5
The difference in results obtained from the bottom and top samples shows possible segregation in
the concrete where samples tested from top sections of 100 mm × 200 mm cylinders had greater
conductivity values.
As shown in the table below, all tested prisms exhibited excellent durability factors with regards
to exposure to freezing and thawing cycles.
Variations in lengths as a function of the number of freezing and thawing cycles for all tested
samples are presented in the attachment.
Frost durability factor (%) according to ASTM C666, Procedure B
Concrete Sample ( a) Sample ( b) Mean
203 101 100 100
204 102 104 103
205 95 100 98
206 108 95 102
207 108 101 104
208 103 103 103
In the hope that you will find all to your satisfaction, I remain,
Yours sincerely,
Nikola Petrov, P. Eng., Ph. D. Kamal H. Khayat, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Adjunct Professor Professor
Figure A- 7
Page 2 of 5
Attachment
Graphs showing length changes as a function of the number of freezing
and thawing cycles for the six tested concretes
Figure A- 7
Page 3 of 5
- 100
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 100 200 300 400
Number of Freezing and Thawing Cycles
Length Change ( με )
Specimen a
Specimen b
Mean
Concrete 203
- 100
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 100 200 300 400
Number of Freezing and Thawing Cycles
Length Change ( με )
Specimen a
Specimen b
Mean
Concrete 205
- 100
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 100 200 300 400
Number of Freezing and Thawing Cycles
Length Change ( με )
Specimen a
Specimen b
Mean
Concrete 204
Figure A- 7
Page 4 of 5
- 100
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 100 200 300 400
Number of Freezing and Thawing Cycles
Length Change ( με ) Specimen a
Specimen b
Mean
Concrete 208
- 100
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 100 200 300 400
Number of Freezing and Thawing Cycles
Length Change ( με )
Specimen a
Specimen b
Mean
Concrete 207
- 100
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 100 200 300 400
Number of Freezing and Thawing Cycles
Length Change ( με )
Specimen a
Specimen b
Mean
Concrete 206
Figure A- 7
Page 5 of 5
APPENDIX B
Field Trial Batches
Quality Ready Mix
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Figure B- 1 Summary of Field Trial Batches
2. Figure B- 2 Summary of Laboratory Test Results
3. Figure B- 3 Compressive Strength Graph
4. Figure B- 4 Static Modulus of Elasticity Report
5. Figure B- 5 Rapid Chloride Ion Penetration Report
6. Figure B- 6 Air Void System Analysis Report
7. Figure B- 7 Resistance to Rapid Freezing and Thawing Report
8. Figure B- 8 Scaling Resistance of Concrete Surface Report
9. Figure B- 9 CTL Follow Up Report
October 5, 2004 Summary of Ready Mix Field Trial Batches
Sunshine Bridge
Concrete Mix Silica Fume HPC
Ready Mix Designation 1344969
Water/ Cementitious Ratio w/ cm 0.43
Portland Cement, ( lbs) 450
Fly Ash Class F, ( lbs) 110
Silica Fume, ( lbs) 23
Fine Aggregates, ( lbs) 1181
Coarse Aggregates, ( lbs) 1765
Water, ( lbs) 250
Water Reducer, ( oz) 38.0
Superplasticizer, ( oz) 17.0
Retarder, ( oz) 10.7
Air Entrainig Agent, ( oz) 4.7
Materials Weights, ( lbs) 3779
Total Cementitious, ( lbs) 583
Percent Fly Ash 24%
Percent Silica Fume ( 1) 5%
Paste Content, percent 26.9
Total Water ( gal) 30.0
Batch Properties
Time Batched 12: 40 p. m.
Time Tested 10: 55 a. m. 11: 40 a. m. 1: 00 p. m.
Age at Testing 19 minutes 1 hr, 4 minutes 1 hr, 20 minutes
Concrete Temperature, F° 80° 80° 75
Ambient Temperature, F° 78° 78° 72
Slump, initial,( in) 6.0 5.50 3.50
Air content, percent 7.4% 5.3% 5.6%
Air content, Gravimetric, percent 8.6% 7.8% 8.1%
Unit Weight, ( pcf) 136.7 137.90 137.10
Unit Weight, theoretical, ( pcf) 149.5 149.5 149.2
( 1) By weight of cement
Materials Properties
Aggregates
Absorption % Fine Coarse
Specific Gravity 1.34 0.74
Fineness Modulus 2.61 2.61
2.75 -
Materials Sources
Cement Type I- II Phoenix
Fly Ash Class F Cholla
Aggregates Snowflake
Water Reducer Pozzolith 80
Super Plasticizer Master Builder, Rheo 1000
Air Entraining Agent Master Builder, Micro Air
Retarder Master Builder, Delvo
1332439
10: 36 a. m.
ADOT Class S
0.43
533
38.0
110
1244
1592
276
0
9.3
5.3
0.0
29.4
33.1
3755
643
21%
0%
Figure B- 1
January 26, 2005 Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Field Trial Batches, Joseph City , AZ
Age ( Days) ADOT Class S
Control Mix Silica Fume Mix
2 1,970 2,460
3 2,040 2,810
7 2,700 3,340
28 3,810 4,810
56 4,230 5,510
90 4,770 5,710
Parameters ADOT Class S
Control Mix Silica Fume Mix
28 days Strength 3,450 4,620
Measured Ec 3,690,000 4,380,000
40% ƒc 3,730,000 4,370,000
450 μ strain 3,730,000 4,380,000
Sample No. ADOT Class S
Control Mix Silica Fume Mix
A 2723 743
B 2496 792
Parameters ADOT Class S
Control Mix Silica Fume Mix
Air Content 5.40 3.20
No. of Voids/ inch 15.50 10.30
Specific Surface 1157 1281
Spacing Factor 0.004 0.004
Paste Content 31.6 23.5
Compressive Strength, ASTM C- 39, ( psi)
Rapid Chloride Permeability, ASTM C- 1202, ( Coulomb)
Static Modulus of Elasticity, ASTM C- 469
Air Void System Analysis, ASTM C- 457 98
Figure B- 2
February 2, 2005
Figure B- 3
Compressive Strength for Field Trial Batches, Joseph City, AZ
Sunshine Bridge
Control Mix Class S ADOT
Silica Fume Mix
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 91 98
Age ( days)
Strength ( psi)
Figure B- 4a SF Mix
Figure B- 4b Control Mix
Figure B- 5a SF Mix
Figure B- 5b Control Mix
Figure B- 6
Figure B- 7a SF Mix
Figure B- 7b Control Mix
Figure B- 8a SF Mix
Page 1 of 3
Figure B- 8a SF Mix
Page 2 of 3
Figure B- 8a SF Mix
Page 3 of 3
Figure B- 8b Control Mix
Page 1 of 3
Figure B- 8b Control Mix
Page 2 of 3
Figure B- 8b Control Mix
Page 3 of 3
Main Office 5400 Old Orchard Road Skokie, Illinois 60077- 1030 Phone 847- 965- 7500 Fax 847- 965- 6541
Northeast Office 5565 Sterrett Place, Suite 312 Columbia, Maryland 21044- 2685 Phone 410- 997- 0400 Fax 410- 997- 8480
www. CTLGroup. com
August 11, 2005
Mr. Tarif M. Jaber
Jaber Engineering
10827 E. Butherus Drive
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
Results of Further Investigation of the
Failure of Submitted ASTM C 666 Freeze- Thaw Specimens
CTLGroup Project No. 390322
Dear Mr. Jaber:
In response to our recent discussion and your concern that CTLGroup did not satisfactorily
perform testing of control and silica fume samples you submitted in early November 2004 we
have reviewed the test data and further examined the tested specimens.
You previously received two reports from CTLGroup dated January 26, 2005 and February 22,
2005 that indicated specimens of both mixes were not freeze- thaw durable. We conducted air-void
analyses on samples from both mixes. This work showed the samples to be adequately air-entrained
with respect to spacing factor and specific surface. The measured air content of the
silica fume mix was 3.2%; the measured air content on the control sample was 5.4%
Since the air- void system was determined to be adequate for freeze- thaw resistance we
examined one failed freeze- thaw specimen from the control and one from the silica fume mix
petrographically in both lapped- and thin- section. Petrographic examination showed regular
micro cracking along one side of each specimen concentrated around aggregates. Cracks are
evident with large, bright crystals of calcium hydroxide along the periphery of aggregates. For
the crystals to grow that large there had to have been space available. Therefore, either the
aggregates were wet or gaps formed shortly after placement. These cracks indicate the
specimens may have been dropped in a semi plastic state or perhaps jolted during demolding or
movement from the field to the laboratory. Specimens become critically water saturated during
this test and the cyclic freeze- thawing cause these cracks to expand. This appears to be the
cause of failure in freeze- thaw testing.
In the future, nominally 3x3x11- inch specimens for ASTM C 666 rapid freezing and thawing
should be fabricated, cured and handled as follows:
1. Place the concrete in the mold, in two layers.
2. Rod each layer 33 times with a 3/ 8- inch diameter rod.
3. After each layer is rodded, tap the outside of the molds lightly 10 to 15 times with a
mallet.
4. After tapping, spade the concrete along the sides and ends of the beam mold with a
snub- nose hand trowel.
Figure B- 9
Page 1 of 3
Mr. Tarif M. Jaber Page 2 of 3
Jaber Engineering August 11, 2005
CTLGroup Project No. 390322
www. CTLGroup. com
5. Finish the surface with a magnesium or wood float. Finish the surface of the concrete
with as little manipulation necessary to obtain a level surface with no depressions or
projections. Finishing should be completed after 3 to 4 passes ( this could be slightly
more if the concrete is stiff).
6. Cover specimens with a plastic sheet and store in a temperature controlled environment
of 73.5± 3.5° F.
7. Remove molds after 24± 8 hours or after 20± 4 hours after final set. Do not knock
specimens out of their molds. Molds should have a light coating of form release before
concrete is introduced to help with demolding.
8. For the first 48 hours keep the specimens in a vibration free environment.
Additionally, the control and test slabs fabricated for ASTM C 672 showed moderate scaling
( rating of 3). Finishing before the bleed water evaporated is the likely cause of the mortar skin
coat scaling on these specimens. Also, the specimens were received with deep tine marks that
may have exacerbated scaling. Following are instructions for the fabrication and curing of
nominal 12x12x3- inch specimens for ASTM C 672.
1. Fill the mold in one layer.
2. Rod the layer 72 times with a 5/ 8- inch diameter rod.
3. After the layer is rodded, tap the outside of the molds lightly 10 to 15 times with a mallet.
4. After tapping, spade the concrete along the sides the mold with a snub- nose hand
trowel.
5. Level the surface with a wood strike off board in several ( 3) passes.
6. After the concrete has stopped bleeding, screed the surface with three sawing motion
passes with the wood strike off board. Bleed water must be totally evaporated before
screeding.
7. The surface may be finished by dragging a stiff bristle brush along the surface or use of
an appropriate finishing tool such as a steel trowel, burlap drag or whatever is going to
be used in the field for finishing. Finish the concrete surface with little manipulation
as possible.
8. Cover specimens with a plastic sheet and store in a temperature controlled environment
of 73.5± 3.5° F.
9. Remove molds after 20 to 24 hours after addition of water. Store in a controlled moist
room at 73.5± 3.5° F and 100% relative humidity for 14 days. Then remove the specimens
from moist storage and store in air at 73.5± 3.5° F and 45 to 55% relative humidity for and
additional 14 days.
10. The first 48 hours should be in a vibration free environment.
Figure B- 9
Page 2 of 3
Mr. Tarif M. Jaber Page 3 of 3
Jaber Engineering August 11, 2005
CTLGroup Project No. 390322
www. CTLGroup. com
Tarif, I am confident that our test results as previously reported accurately reflected the
performance of the samples submitted for test. Hopefully, our additional work has shed light on
the reasons for the unanticipated behavior of the samples and provides insight on how to avoid
this situation in the future.
Sincerely,
CTLGROUP
An AASHTO Accredited Laboratory – Aggregates, Cement & Concrete
W. Morrison
Principal Materials Consulting
Materials Consulting
wmorrison@ CTLGroup. com
Direct Phone: 847- 972- 3162
Figure B- 9
Page 3 of 3
APPENDIX C
Preconstruction Work
Field Trial Batches
Slab Demonstrations
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Figure C- 1 Project Milestone Schedule for HPC
2. Figure C- 2 Summary of Field Trial Batches
3. Figure C- 3 Summary of Slab Demonstrations
4. Figure C- 4a First Demonstration Slab Placement Layout
5. Figure C- 4b Second Demonstration Slab Placement Layout
Project Milestones Schedule for
HPC Deck Placement Sunshine Bridge Project
Mix Design Submittal
( No later than 60 days before deck placement)
Preconstruction Conference
Develop Mix Design
( Trial batches, laboratory or field)
HPC Field Slab Demonstration
( 30 days before deck placement)
( No later that 14 days before deck placement)
Pre- Placement meeting
( At least 2 days before deck placement)
Bridge Deck Placement
HP Concrete Preconstruction Meeting
( No later than 14 days after preconstruction conference)
( No later than 90 days before initial deck placement)
Milestone 1
Milestone 2
Milestone 3
Milestone 4
Milestone 5
Milestone 6
Milestone 7
Figure C- 1
Sunshine Bridge
Trial Batches
5/ 18/ 2005 5/ 23/ 2005 6/ 3/ 2005
Material Design Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
Cement, lbs 475 480 477 478
Fly Ash, lbs 110 108 112 108
Silica Fume, lbs 25 25 25 25
Sand, lbs 1190 1176 1177 1174
1" CA, lbs 1299 1294 1307 1310
1/ 2" CA, lbs 371 373 365 377
3/ 8" CA, lbs 186 198 218 189
Water, lbs 250 282 250 259
gls 30.0 33.8 30.0 31.0
Micro Air, oz 9 9 9 11.5
pozz 80, oz 37 37 37 37
( water reducer)
Rheo 1000, oz 49 48 169
( plasticizer) 50 oz at batch no slump at 1 hr
64 oz at pump 3 inch slump, stiffening
Glenium 3400, oz 49 / 58 55 oz at pump 8 inch before pump
( plasticizer) ( at plant / at pump) 7 inch at 10 minutes
5.25 inch at 20 minutes
w/ c ratio 0.410 0.460 0.407 0.424
Slump Before SP 2.5 1.5
( Before Pump)
Slump After SP 4.5 / 4.5 6.5 / 6.5
( Before/ After Pump) 3.25" in 15 min
% Air 5.1 / 5.1 8.9 / 9.6 2.5
( before/ After Pump)
Strength, psi Strength, psi Strength, psi
Age 6x12 / 4x8 6x12 6x12
1- day 1720 / 1990 2600
2- day 2150
3- day 4370
7- day 4270 / 5030 3330 5200
14- day 5230 / 6290 3550
28- day 6080 / 6840 4410 8970
Notes:
Trial 1 At a w/ c ratio of 0.40 the slump did not respond to the super plasticizer
Trial 2 Glen 3400 entrains air, rapid slump loss, high air resulted in low strength
Trial 3 50 oz/ cy SP at batch; 119 oz/ cy at pump; will not hold slump SP at 28 oz/ cwt, not normal
low initial slump may have not allowed air to build
Trial batch results were reduced to one cubic yard units for comparison to the proposed design
Information provided by Rinker
Figure C- 2
Page 1 of 9
Sunshine Bridge
Trial Batches
6/ 28/ 2005 6/ 29/ 2005 7/ 6/ 2005 7/ 6/ 2005
Material Design Trial 4 Trial 5 Trial 6 Trial 7
Cement, lbs 475 478 470 478 478
Fly Ash, lbs 110 110 165 108 168
Silica Fume, lbs 25 25 25 25 25
Sand, lbs 1190 1232 1240 1256 1192
1" CA, lbs 1299 1296 1320 1280 1256
1/ 2" CA, lbs 371 376 360 392 352
3/ 8" CA, lbs 186 192 220 216 192
Water, lbs 250 268 276 266 269
gls 30.0 32.1 33.1 31.9 32.2
Micro Air, oz 9 5 4 7 9
pozz 80, oz 37 37 42 37 40
( water reducer)
Rheo 1000, oz 49 48 78 101
( plasticizer)
Glen 3400, oz
( plasticizer)
w/ c ratio 0.41 0.437 0.418 0.435 0.401
Slump Before SP 5.25 @ batch 4.00 @ batch 1.5 @ batch 7.75 @ batch
3.50 @ 45 min 3.75 @ 50 min 4.75 @ 50 min
5.25 @ 61 min
Slump After SP 7.75 @ 55 min 8.25 1.75 @ 10 min
6.25 @ 15 min
4.00 @ 60 min
5.25 @ 80 min
% Final Air content 3.10% 1.80% 11.50% 4.60%
Strength, psi Strength, psi
Age 4x8 4x8
1- day 1970
2- day
3- day 3940 2490
7- day 5070 4380
14- day
Trial batch results were reduced to one cubic yard units for comparison to the proposed design
Information provided by Rinker
Figure C- 2
Page 2 of 9
Sunshine Bridge
Trial Batch
Date 18- May- 05 Trial Batch No. 1
Batch Size, cu. Yd. 5
Free SSD
Material Batch Weight Moisture SSD weight Free Water, lbs 1 cy weight
Cement, lbs 2400 480
Fly Ash, lbs 540 108
Silica Fume, lbs 125 25
Sand, lbs 6200 5.4 5882 318 1176
1" CA, lbs 6520 0.8 6468 52 1294
1/ 2" CA, lbs 1880 0.8 1865 15 373
3/ 8" CA, lbs 1000 0.8 992 8 198
Water, gls 122 1016
Ice, lbs
Micro Air, oz 44 9
pozz 80, oz 184 37
( water reducer)
Rheo 1000, oz 240 ( 7.8 oz/ cwt) 48
( plasticizer) ( addea at pump)
3400, oz
( plasticizer)
Total water, lbs 1409 282
w/ c ratio 0.46
Unit Weight, pcf 144.8
Slump Before SP, in 2.5
( Before pump)
Slump After SP, in 4.5 Slump After SP, in 4.5
( Before pump) ( after pump)
Air,% 5.1 Air,% 5.2
( Before pump) ( after pump)
Notes the initial slump at .40 w/ c did not respond to the Rheo 1000 plasticizer. We will switch to
a second product 3400 by Master Builders for Trial # 2
Strength, psi 6x12 4x8
1 - day 1720 1990
7- day 4270 5030
14- day 5230 6290
Information provided by Rinker
Figure C- 2
Page 3 of 9
Sunshine Bridge
Trial Batch
Date 23- May- 05 Trial Batch No. 2
Batch Size, cu. Yd. 6
Free SSD SSD Target
Material Batch Weight Moisture Weights Free Water, lbs 1 cy weight Design
Cement, lbs 2860 477 475
Fly Ash, lbs 670 112 110
Silica Fume, lbs 150 25 25
Sand, lbs 7400 4.8 7061 339 1177 1190
1" CA, lbs 7840 0 7840 0 1307 1299
1/ 2" CA, lbs 2200 0.4 2191 9 365 371
3/ 8" CA, lbs 1320 0.9 1308 12 218 186
Water, gls 101 841
Ice, lbs 300 300 50
Micro Air, oz 52 9 9
pozz 80, oz 224 37 37
( water reducer)
Glen. 3400 plasticizer, oz 294 ( 8 oz/ cwt) 49
( added at batch plant)
Glen. 3400 plasticizer, oz 348 ( 9.5 oz/ cwt) 58
( added at job before pump)
Total water, lbs 1501 250 250
w/ c ratio 0.41
Slump with SP, in 1.5
( Before pump)
1: 50 PM 2: 05 PM 2: 20pm
Slump w/ additional SP, in 6.5 Slump After SP, in 6.5 3.25
( Before pump) ( after pump)
Air,% 8.9 Air,% 9.6
( Before pump) ( after pump)
Age Strength, psi
2- day 2150
7- day 3330
14- day 3550
Notes: As recommended By Master Builders we used a new plasticizer which we were not aware
entrained air. We will continue to adjust the Micro air dosage to accommodate the increased air.
It should be noted that after two trials we have not lost air as a result of pumping. Further trials to refine
the design will not involve pumping. The mix has rapid slump loss.
Information provided by Rinker
Figure C- 2
Page 4 of 9
Sunshine Bridge
Trial Batch
Date 3- Jun- 05 Trial Batch No. 3
Batch Size, cu. Yd. 4
Batch Time 8: 42 Trial Batch
Free SSD SSD Target
Material Batch Weight Moisture Weights Free Water, lbs 1 cy weight Design
Cement, lbs 1910 478 475
Fly Ash, lbs 430 108 110
Silica Fume, lbs 100 25 25
Sand, lbs 4920 4.8 4695 225 1174 1190
1" CA, lbs 5280 0.8 5238 42 1310 1299
1/ 2" CA, lbs 1520 0.8 1508 12 377 371
3/ 8" CA, lbs 760 0.8 754 6 189 186
Water, gls 59 491
Ice, lbs 260 260 65
Micro Air, oz 34 12 46 11.5 9
( at batch) ( before pump) ( total air)
pozz 80, oz 148 37 37
( water reducer)
Rheo 1000, oz 198 256 220 674 168.5 49
( plasticizer) ( at batch) ( before pump) ( before pump) ( total sp)
( 8 oz/ cwt) ( 10.5 oz/ cwt) ( 9 oz/ cwt) ( 27.6 oz/ cwt) ( 27.6 oz/ cwt)
per cy 50 64 55 168.5
1036 259
W/ C Ratio 0.425 0.425
Temp 66 F
Rheo 1000 added 256 oz before pump @ 9: 45
slump before pump = 3.0 in., air before pump = = 2.6%
Rheo 1000 added 220 oz before pump @ 10: 25
slump before pump = 8 in
slump after pump = 7 in @ 10: 35, 51/ 4 in @ 10: 45
Microair adeded 12 oz before pump,
air after pump = 2.5%
Age Strength, psi
1- day 2600
3- day 4370
Information provided by Rinker
Figure C- 2
Page 5 of 9
Sunshine Bridge
Trial Batches
Date 28- Jun- 05 Trial Batch No. 4
Batch Size, cu. Yd. 5
Batch Time 8: 42 Trial Batch
Free SSD SSD Target
Material Batch Weight Moisture Weights Free Water, lbs 1 cy weight Design
Cement, lbs 2390 478 475
Fly Ash, lbs 550 110 110
Silica Fume, lbs 125 25 25
Total 3065 613 610
Sand, lbs 6160 3.9 5929 231 1232 1190
1" CA, lbs 6480 - 0.7 6525 - 45 1296 1299
1/ 2" CA, lbs 1880 - 1.0 1898 - 18 376 371
3/ 8" CA, lbs 960 1.4 947 13 192 186
Water, gls 139 1158 268 277
Ice, lbs 0 0
1339
Micro Air, oz 24 5 9
pozz 80, oz 184 37 37
( water reducer)
Rheo 1000, oz 240 48 49
( plasticizer)
W/ C Ratio 0.437 0.437 0.45
After Plasticizer
1: 05 PM 1: 50 PM 2: 00 PM
Slump, in 5.25 3.5 7.75
Temp, F 81 83 83
% Air 6.5 5.4 3.1*
* sampled at back of load no prior discharge of concrete
Information provided by Rinker
Figure C- 2
Page 6 of 9
Sunshine Bridge
Trial Batches
Date 29- Jun- 05 Trial Batch No. 5
Batch Size, cu. Yd. 2
Batch Time 10: 49am Trial Batch
Free SSD SSD Target
Material Batch Weight Moisture Weights Free Water, lbs 1 cy weight Design
Cement, lbs 940 470 475
Fly Ash, lbs 330 165 170
Silica Fume, lbs 50 25 25
Total 1320 660 670
Sand, lbs 2480 4.8 2366 114 1240 1130
1" CA, lbs 2640 - 1.1 2669 - 29 1320 1258
1/ 2" CA, lbs 720 - 1.2 729 - 9 360 360
3/ 8" CA, lbs 440 0.2 439 1 220 180
Water, gls 57 475 276 283
Ice, lbs 0 0
552
Micro Air, oz 8 4 9
pozz 80, oz 84 42 40
( water reducer)
Rheo 1000, oz 156 78 80
( plasticizer)
W/ C Ratio 0.418 0.418 0.42
@ batch @ 50 min After Plasticizer
Slump, in 4 3.75 8.25
Temp, F 82 82 82
% Air 5.7 5.4 1.8*
* taken at back of load prior to discharge of concrete
Information provided by Rinker
Figure C- 2
Page 7 of 9
Sunshine Bridge
Trial Batches
Date 6- Jul- 05 Trial Batch No. 6
Batch Size, cu. Yd. 5
Batch Time 12: 02 Trial Batch
Free SSD SSD Target
Material Batch Weight Moisture Weights Free Water, lbs 1 cy weight Design
Cement, lbs 2390 478 475
Fly Ash, lbs 540 108 110
Silica Fume, lbs 125 25 25
Total 3055 611 610
Sand, lbs 6280 4.6 6004 276 1256 1130
1" CA, lbs 6400 - 0.3 6419 - 19 1280 1258
1/ 2" CA, lbs 1960 - 1.0 1980 - 20 392 360
3/ 8" CA, lbs 1080 0.4 1076 4 216 180
Water, gls 131 1091 266 283
Ice, lbs 0 0
1332
Micro Air, oz 34 7 9
pozz 80, oz 184 37 40
( water reducer)
3030, oz 901 180 80
( plasticizer)
W/ C Ratio 0.436 0.436 0.46
Glen 3030 SP 12.5 oz/ cwt 10 oz/ cwt 7 oz/ cwt
After Sp aditional sp additional sp
@ batch @ 10 min @ 15 min @ 60 min @ 1 hr 20 min
Slump, in 1.5 1.75 6.25 4.0 5.25
Temp, F 81 83 83 87 87
% Air 5.4 6.4 8.4 9.5 11.5
* taken at back of load prior to discharge of concrete
Information provided by Rinker
Figure C- 2
Page 8 of 9
Sunshine Bridge
Trial Batches
Date 6- Jul- 05 Trial Batch No. 7
Batch Size, cu. Yd. 5
Batch Time 14: 24 Trial Batch
Free SSD SSD Target
Material Batch Weight Moisture Weights Free Water, lbs 1 cy weight Design
Cement, lbs 2390 478 475
Fly Ash, lbs 840 168 170
Silica Fume, lbs 125 25 25
Total 3355 671 670
Sand, lbs 5960 4.1 5725 235 1192 1130
1" CA, lbs 6280 - 0.4 6305 - 25 1256 1258
1/ 2" CA, lbs 1760 - 0.8 1774 - 14 352 360
3/ 8" CA, lbs 960 1.1 950 10 192 180
Water, gls 137 1141 269 283
131+ 6
Ice, lbs 0 0
1347
Micro Air, oz 46 9 9
34 + 12
pozz 80, oz 200 40 40
( water reducer)
Rheo 1000, oz 504 added at batch plant 101 101
( plasticizer)
W/ C Ratio 0.402 0.402 0.42
@ batch @ 50 min @ 61 min
Slump, in 7.75 4.75 5.25*
Temp, F 82 85 85
% Air 4.3 2.9 4.6*
* added 6 gal, added 12 oz micro air
* taken at back of load prior to discharge of concrete
Information provided by Rinker
Figure C- 2
Page 9 of 9
September 28, 2005 Summary of Slab Demonstration
Concrete Ambient Concrete Ambient
443 75 8 1/ 2 7.20% Truck 70 68 6 1/ 2
Pump 73 68 6 3.50%
423 75 7 3/ 4 7.80% Truck 70 69 6 1/ 4
Pump 73 68 5 2.70%
100 74 6 1/ 2 7.00% Truck 76 70 2 3/ 4
Pump 79 70 7 2.60%
N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A Truck Not Tested Not Tested 5 3/ 4
Pump Not Tested Not Tested 3 4.70%
3.38%
Concrete Ambient Concrete Ambient
1 70 61 6 3/ 4 8.50% before pump 67 60 5 1/ 4 3.90% 140.40% 4.60%
2 69 61 7 1/ 2 9.20% 68 60 7 5.10% 144.40% 4.10%
3 71 61 5.5 0.09 70 61 5 5.50% 145.20% 3.50%
4.07%
Average air content loss from batching to pumping on deck for both demonstrations 3.72%
Air
Air Content %
5.70%
3.70%
5.70%
5.10%
4.80%
3.10%
4.40%
7.80%
Temperature, F° Temperature, F°
Truck # Slump
( inch)
Air
Content
%
Test location
Batch Plant On Site
Total Air content Loss.
Test location Batch to deck
Temperature, F° Slump
( inch)
Air
Content
%
Truck #
Temperature, F° Slump
( inch)
Average air content loss from batching to pumping on deck
Average air content loss from batching to pumping on deck
Slab demonstration No. 1, August 5, 2005
Total Air content Loss.
Batch to deck
Slab demonstration No. 2, August 16, 2005
On Site
Slump
( inch)
Unit
Weight,
( pcf)
Batch Plant
Figure C- 3
Figure C- 4a
Figure C- 4b
APPENDIX D
Field Test Results
Concrete Deck Placement
List of Figures
1. Figure D- 1 Summary of Field Testing of Concrete Deck Placement
2. Figure D- 2 Summary of Batch Weights
3. Figure D- 3 Chart of Water Cementitious Ratio by Load
4. Figure D- 4 Deck Placement Schematic QA/ QC Plan
5. Figure D- 5 Deck Placement Schematic Layout
6. Figure D- 6a Truck Load Placement Location, East End
7. Figure D- 6b Truck Load Placement Location, West End
8. Figure D- 7 Meeting Minutes February 7, 2006
February 28, 2006 Summary Field Testing of Concrete Deck Placement
Sunshine Bridge
Meas. Hard( 2) Con. Air Meas( 1) Hard( 2)
JEC
Hard( 2)
ADOT Grav( 3) Meas. Theo Con. Air
1 89324 1: 02 8 1/ 4 8.8% 73 63 2: 18 5 1/ 4 9.5% 70 70
2 89361 1: 45 8 1/ 4 11.0% 9.6% 74 63 2: 45 6 8.8% 68 3: 12 7 1/ 4 2.5% 2.2% 2.9% 2.8% 148.2 152.5 70 62 X X X 2 1/ 4 - 1 1/ 4 2.2% 6.3% 0.30% 1: 00
3 89393 2: 12 8 1/ 2 10.2% 71 63 3: 13 6 1/ 2 10.0% 65 2 0.2% 1: 01
4 89415 2: 30 8 11.5% 72 62 3: 37 6 9.0% 67 3: 55 7 3.5% 3.3% 147.4 152.5 68 X 2 - 1 2.5% 5.6% 1: 07
5 89439 2: 45 8 3/ 4 10.0% 70 62 3: 49 6 9.5% 66 2 3/ 4 0.5% 1: 04
6( 4) 89462 3: 01 9 9.0% 70 62 4: 15 4 1/ 4 7.2% 66 4 3/ 4 1.8% 1: 14
7 89494 3: 15 8 11.5% 71 59 4: 32 6 1/ 2 9.0% 68 6 3/ 4 5.4% 4.0% 5.0% 144.8 152.5 69 X X 1 1/ 2 - 1/ 4 2.5% 3.6% 1.40% 1: 17
8 89539 3: 33 8 3/ 4 10.0% 10.3% 71 59 4: 39 7 1/ 2 10.8% 67 5: 00 8 1/ 2 4.1% 2.6% 4.8% 145.2 152.5 68 X X 1 1/ 4 - 1 - 0.8% 6.7% 1: 06
9 89619 3: 50 8 1/ 2 10.2% 70 59 4: 50 5 10.0% 70 3 1/ 2 0.2% 1: 00
10 89653 4: 03 8 10.0% 8.4% 73 57 5: 09 5 10.0% 67 5: 25 6 1/ 2 6.0% 4.7% 6.4% 142.8 152.6 70 X 3 - 1 1/ 2 0.0% 4.0% 1: 06
11 89726 4: 18 8 10.0% 71 57 5: 21 6 1/ 2 9.0% 70 4.7% X 1 1/ 2 1.0% 1: 03
8 1/ 3 10.2% 71 61 5 6/ 7 9.3% 68 7 1/ 5 4.3% 3.6% 3.4% 4.5% 145.7 152.5 69 66 2 4/ 9 - 1 1.0% 5.2% 0.85% 1: 05
Meas. Hard( 2) Con. Air Meas( 1) Hard( 2)
JEC
Hard( 2)
ADOT Grav( 3) Meas. Theo Con. Air
12 48776 4: 32 8 10.2% 71 57 5: 34 6 3/ 4 9.0% 67 7 6.7% 6.8% 142.2 152.5 67 X 1 1/ 4 - 1/ 4 1.2% 2.3% 1: 02
13 89833 4: 41 8 9.3% 70 57 5: 49 5 3/ 4 10.0% 67 2 1/ 4 - 0.7% 1: 08
14 89868 4: 50 7 1/ 2 9.1% 7.4% 73 56 6: 04 5 3/ 4 10.0% 67 6: 18 6 1/ 4 6.2% 5.2% 5.2% 5.4% 144.2 152.5 X X X 1 3/ 4 - 1/ 2 - 0.9% 3.8% 1.00% 1: 14
15 89919 5: 01 8 10.0% 71 56 5: 59 6 1/ 2 8.0% 66 1 1/ 2 2.0% 0: 58
16 90014 5: 10 7 1/ 2 9.0% 70 55 6: 19 6 9.0% 67 6: 30 5 1/ 4 7.2% 6.4% 142.8 152.5 70 X 1 1/ 2 3/ 4 0.0% 1.8% 1: 09
17 90102 5: 22 8 11.0% 70 55 6: 25 4 1/ 4 10.0% 67 3 3/ 4 1.0% 1: 03
18 90195 5: 34 7 1/ 4 12.0% 9.8% 73 55 6: 36 5 1/ 2 10.5% 65 6: 55 5 6.8% 6.5% 6.0% 7.5% 141.0 152.5 70 X X 1 3/ 4 1/ 2 1.5% 1: 02
Rinker testing 12.9% 13.2% 132.4 152.5 X 0.30%
19 90293 5: 50 7 1/ 4 11.2% 70 53 6: 48 5 3/ 4 10.5% 69 1 1/ 2 0.7% 0: 58
20 90648 6: 25 8 1/ 4 8.0% 69 53 7: 25 7 1/ 4 9.5% 67 7: 31 7 3/ 4 6.0% 6.4% 142.8 152.5 70 X 1 - 1/ 2 - 1.5% 2.0% 1: 00
Rinker testing 7.5% 8.1% 140.2 152.5 X
21 90192
7 3/ 4 10.0% 71 55 6 9.6% 67 6 1/ 4 7.6% 5.9% 5.6% 7.7% 140.8 152.5 69 1 4/ 5 0 0.4% 2.5% 0.65% 1: 03
Time
Air %
Air % Temp
Time
pump
vs. hard
Load
Testing at the Plant At Job Before Pump At Job After Pump
Ticket Time
( a. m.)
Slump
( inch)
Testing by
Temp
Slump Loss Air Loss
Travel Time,
( hrs)
Rinker
ADOT
CTL
Travel
Pump
Travel
Pump
Slump
( inch)
Meas.
Air%
Conc.
Temp
Time
( a. m.)
Slump
( inch)
Air% Unit Weight Temp
Averages
Pump
pump
vs. hard
Load
Testing at the Plant At Job Before Pump At Job After Pump
Ticket Time
( a. m.)
Slump
( inch)
Testing by Slump Loss Air Loss
Travel Time,
( hrs)
Rinker
ADOT
CTL
Travel
Pump
Travel
Averages
Notes:
Slump
( inch)
Air% Unit Weight Temp
Slump
( inch)
Meas.
Air%
Conc.
Temp
Time
( a. m.)
Loads 1 through 11 were placed with a 52 meter Putzmeister pump
Loads 12 through 20 were placed with a 45 meter Schwing pump
Information compiled by Jaber Engineering from testing data from ADOT, Rinker and CTL
( 1) Average of ADOT and Rinker Materials test results
( 2) Air content from petrographic analysis by CTL ( JEC and ADOT samples)
( 3) Based on the theoretical and measured unit weights
( 4) Added 60 oz of superplasticizer and 35 oz of air before pump
Concrete was placed on August 24, 2005
Figure D- 1
August 24, 2005 Summary of Batch Weights, Rinker Materials, Flagstaff
Sunshine Bridge
3/ 4 in. 1/ 2 in. 3/ 8 in.
1 10 477 160 30 1253 361 184 1122 263 3850 40.0 90.6 19.0 0.395
2 10 473 160 30 1253 361 184 1122 263 3846 40.0 90.0 25.0 0.397
3 10 473 159 30 1249 361 184 1130 264 3849 40.0 90.6 25.0 0.398
4 10 473 161 30 1245 364 184 1122 263 3843 40.0 90.0 25.0 0.397
5 10 474 160 30 1249 364 184 1126 264 3852 40.4 90.0 25.0 0.398
6 10 474 160 30 1257 361 184 1126 264 3855 40.4 90.0 25.2 0.397
7 10 473 161 30 1241 364 187 1126 265 3848 40.0 90.0 25.0 0.398
8 10 472 159 30 1249 361 180 1122 263 3836 40.4 90.0 25.0 0.398
9 10 473 159 30 1249 368 184 1122 264 3850 40.0 90.0 25.0 0.399
10 10 474 160 30 1249 364 180 1122 263 3843 40.0 90.6 25.0 0.396
11 10 473 160 30 1249 364 184 1122 263 3846 40.0 90.0 25.0 0.397
12 10 473 161 30 1257 364 180 1122 264 3852 40.0 84.0 25.0 0.398
13 10 474 160 30 1249 364 184 1122 263 3847 40.0 84.0 25.0 0.397
14 10 474 160 30 1253 361 184 1119 264 3844 40.0 84.0 25.0 0.398
15 10 474 160 30 1249 364 180 1119 263 3839 40.0 76.8 27.0 0.396
16 10 475 160 30 1249 364 184 1122 264 3849 40.0 76.8 27.0 0.397
17 10 473 160 30 1249 361 180 1126 263 3842 40.0 76.8 27.0 0.397
18 10 474 161 30 1253 361 184 1126 264 3853 40.0 76.8 27.0 0.398
19 10 474 163 30 1245 364 184 1134 264 3858 40.0 76.8 27.0 0.396
20 10 474 159 30 1249 364 184 1115 264 3839 40.4 76.8 27.0 0.398
21 6 475 160 30 1265 359 185 1105 263 3842 40.0 77.0 26.7 0.395
474 160 30 1251 363 183 1123 264 3847 40.1 84.8 25.375 0.397
475 160 30 1254 358 182 1121 271 3851 40 86 19
Load
No. Yds Cement Fly
Ash
Silica
Fume 3/ 4 in. 1/ 2 in. 3/ 8 in. Sand Water Total Pozzolith
80
Rheobuild
1000
Micro
Air
1 10 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% - 0.1% 0.7% 0.9% 0.1% - 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0%
2 10 - 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% - 0.1% 0.7% 0.9% 0.1% - 2.8% - 0.1% 0.0% 4.7% 31.6%
3 10 - 0.4% - 0.6% 0.0% - 0.4% 0.7% 0.9% 0.8% - 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 31.6%
4 10 - 0.4% 0.6% 0.0% - 0.7% 1.8% 0.9% 0.1% - 2.8% - 0.2% 0.0% 4.7% 31.6%
5 10 - 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% - 0.4% 1.8% 0.9% 0.5% - 2.4% 0.0% 1.0% 4.7% 31.6%
6 10 - 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.7% 0.9% 0.5% - 2.7% 0.1% 1.0% 4.7% 32.6%
7 10 - 0.4% 0.6% 0.0% - 1.0% 1.8% 3.0% 0.5% - 2.4% - 0.1% 0.0% 4.7% 31.6%
8 10 - 0.6% - 0.6% 0.0% - 0.4% 0.7% - 1.2% 0.1% - 2.9% - 0.4% 1.0% 4.7% 31.6%
9 10 - 0.4% - 0.6% 0.0% - 0.4% 2.9% 0.9% 0.1% - 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% 31.6%
10 10 - 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% - 0.4% 1.8% - 1.2% 0.1% - 2.9% - 0.2% 0.0% 5.3% 31.6%
11 10 - 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% - 0.4% 1.8% 0.9% 0.1% - 2.8% - 0.1% 0.0% 4.7% 31.6%
12 10 - 0.4% 0.6% 0.0% 0.3% 1.8% - 1.2% 0.1% - 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% - 2.3% 31.6%
13 10 - 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% - 0.4% 1.8% 0.9% 0.1% - 2.8% - 0.1% 0.0% - 2.3% 31.6%
14 10 - 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% - 0.1% 0.7% 0.9% - 0.2% - 2.6% - 0.2% 0.0% - 2.3% 31.6%
15 10 - 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% - 0.4% 1.8% - 1.2% - 0.2% - 2.9% - 0.3% 0.0% - 10.7% 42.1%
16 10 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - 0.4% 1.8% 0.9% 0.1% - 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% - 10.7% 42.1%
17 10 - 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% - 0.4% 0.7% - 1.2% 0.5% - 2.8% - 0.2% 0.0% - 10.7% 42.1%
18 10 - 0.2% 0.6% 0.0% - 0.1% 0.7% 0.9% 0.5% - 2.4% 0.1% 0.0% - 10.7% 42.1%
19 10 - 0.2% 1.9% 0.0% - 0.7% 1.8% 0.9% 1.2% - 2.6% 0.2% 0.0% - 10.7% 42.1%
20 10 - 0.2% - 0.6% 0.0% - 0.4% 1.8% 0.9% - 0.6% - 2.6% - 0.3% 1.0% - 10.7% 42.1%
21 6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.3% 1.6% - 1.5% - 3.0% - 0.2% 0.0% - 10.5% 40.4%
w/ cm
Ratio
Load
No.
Average
Yds
Cement Fly
Ash
Silica
Fume Sand Water Total
Mix design
Deviation of batch weights from mix design
Pozzolith
80
Rheobuild
1000
Micro
Air
Coarse Aggregates
lbs per cubic yard lbs per cubic yard ( SSD) lbs/ cubic yard ounce per cubic yard
Figure D- 2
August 24, 2005 Water Cementitious Ratio By Load
Figure D- 3
0.380
0.385
0.390
0.395
0.400
0.405
0.410
0.415
0.420
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Truck Load
w/ cm Ratio
August 24, 2005
Batching Concrete Check Point A Travel to Site Check Point B Pumping Check Point C Testing Placement
Batch Plant Batch Plant Interstate I- 40 Ramp on- site On Site On Deck On Site On Deck
JEC
Verify Mix
Proportions
Report w/ cm to
ADOT when not
in specifications
Cast concrete
samples to confirm
HPC Properties
ADOT
Check aggregates
moisture and
absorption
Test slump, air
and temperature
and verify truck
water tank is
empty
Test concrete for
slump, air and
temperature. Allow
truck to go to pump
only when within
agreed criteria
Test air content on
deck and determine air
loss. Feedback to
check points A & B for
air adjustment
Reject if
concrete on
deck is not
within project
requirements
Test slump, air and
temperature. Cast
6x12 cylinders for
compressive strength
testing
Vastco
Rinker
Batching Test slump, air
and temperature
and verify truck
water tank is
empty
No water
added
Test slump, air and
temperature. Make
adjustments to air
slump as needed
using admixtures
Test slump, air and
temperature. Cast
6x12 cylinders for
compressive strength
testing
Place, finish
protect and cure
concrete
Deck Placement QA/ QC Schematic Plan
Testing
TEAM
MEMBERS
Batch Plant Transportation Pumping Concrete
Figure D- 4
August 24, 2005
Bridge Deck
West Ramp East Ramp
1- Placement started at the east side of the bridge deck using a 52M pump
2- Placement continued at the west side of the bridge deck using a 45M pump starting with load number 12
3- Trucks were allowed to proceed to pump only when air content was a minimum of 9%
4- ADOT and Rinker testing crews performed concrete testing at test stations 1A and 1B before the pump
5- ADOT and Rinker testing crews cast concrete test cylinders from concrete placed on deck after the pump
6- WTI made concrete test specimens to verify properties of HPC
7- Concrete was sampled from the deck using wheel borrows
Deck Placement Schematic Layout
Notes
Test station 1B @ Check Point B Test station 1A @ Check Point B
42M
Pump
52M
Pump
Placement direction
Section placed
using 45M pump
Section placed
using 52M pump
Figure D- 5
Figure D- 6a
Figure D- 6b
Figure D- 7
Page 1 of 2
Comments from the Sunshine Bridge project meeting February 7, 2006
Attendees:
1. Fadi Jalaghi Premier Engineering
2. John Scoggin ADOT Holbrook Lab
3. Christ Dimitroplos ADOT ATRC
4. Mike Kohout Riker Materials
5. Aryan Lagrange FHWA
6. Ed Van Beek Vastco
7. Clifton Guest ADOT Bridge Management
8. John Ivanov ADOT Materials
9. Carl Ericksen ADOT Holbrook District
10. David Sikes ADOT Holbrook District
11. Chad Auker ADOT Materials
12. Henry Sung ADOT Bridge
13. Jean Nehme ADOT Bridge
The following comments were made during the February 7, 2006 project meeting held
with the contractor, the design team and ADOT to get input from all team members about
lessons learned from the project:
1. Include a separate pay item or a force account to pay for the demonstration trial
slab.
2. Specify a larger trial demonstration slab so the contractor can make the necessary
adjustments. This may reduce the number of unsuccessful demonstration
placements.
3. Eliminate pump requirement during the batch plant trials and require pump
verifications of air and slump loss at the demonstration slabs.
4. Select aggregate with low or reduced absorption, preferably river- washed
aggregate known for its low absorption and low water demand
5. Use volumetric meters rather than pressure meters for testing air content in the
field.
6. Specify the targeted air at the point of placement or possibly the hardened air.
7. Provide a uniform hole- pattern with a minimum size of 1 ˝ inch in the
burlap/ plastic ( burlene) to allow curing water to go through the plastic to the
burlap and prevent water runoff on the plastic surface.
Figure D- 7
Page 2 of 2
8. Allow adequate time in the construction schedule for water curing. In the case of
the Sunshine Bridge project, a 28- day schedule was needed to accommodate a 14-
day cure for the deck and a 14- day cure for the barriers. This schedule was
underestimated in the project original schedule.
9. Vastco indicated that the use of HPC on bridge projects can increase overall
construction costs by approximately 10 percent compared to using a standard
ADOT class S concrete. The unit cost for the concrete is expected to be 50 to 100
percent higher for HPC compared to an ADOT class S concrete, however
eliminating the pump requirement during batching trials would reduce the unit
cost of concrete.
10. For a performance- based specification, Vastco would require approximately 120
days for the concrete supplier to complete testing for the mix design acceptance.
APPENDIX E
Laboratory Test Results
Concrete Deck Placement
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Figure E- 1a Summary of Laboratory Test Results
2. Figure E- 1b Compressive Strength Test Results
3. Figure E- 2 Compressive Strength Graph
4. Figure E- 3 Shrinkage Potential Graph
5. Figure E- 4 CTL Summary Test Report
6. Figure E- 5 Rapid Chloride Ion Penetration
7. Figure E- 6 Resistance to Rapid Freezing and Thawing
8. Figure E- 7 Scaling Resistance of Concrete Surface
9. Figure E- 8a Air Void System Analysis, JEC Samples
10. Figure E- 8b Air Void System Analysis, ADOT Samples
11. Figure E- 9 Static Modulus of Elasticity
12. Figure E- 10 Shrinkage Potential
13. Figure E- 11 Tension and Bend Testing on Steel
May 5, 2006 Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Bridge Deck Placement
Average Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5
A 983 1042 1029 1123 936
B 953 973 944 989 871
At 56 days 968 1008 987 1056 904
Average Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5
No of cycles N/ A 67 203 203 203 203
RDME % * N/ A < 60% 67% 75% 91% 93%
Air Void % 4.5 2.2 4.0 4.7 5.2 6.5
Average Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5
A 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.0
B 2.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.0
At 50 cycles 1.8 1.3 2.3 1.0 1.0
Average Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5
Air Content 4.5 2.2 4.0 4.7 5.2 6.5
No of Voids/ inch 7.10 3.30 6.20 6.70 9.00 10.30
Specific Surface 621 589 624 570 688 632
Spacing Factor 0.009 0.012 0.009 0.009 0.008 0.007
Paste Content 31.50 29.0 31.9 32.0 33.4 31.2
Average Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5
3- day Strength 3,283,333 3,400,000 3,200,000 3,250,000
7- day Strength 3,500,000 3,550,000 3,450,000 3,500,000
28- day Strength 3,980,000 4,100,000 4,150,000 3,900,000 4,000,000 3,750,000
Average Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5
1 0.012 0.017 0.011 0.005 0.015 0.012
4 0.001 0.007 - 0.002 - 0.001 0.003 - 0.002
7 - 0.005 - 0.001 - 0.004 - 0.010 - 0.005 - 0.006
14 - 0.012 - 0.006 - 0.011 - 0.018 - 0.015 - 0.011
28 - 0.027 - 0.016 - 0.026 - 0.027 - 0.031 - 0.034
56 - 0.032 - 0.024 - 0.032 - 0.035 - 0.036 - 0.035
112 - 0.041 - 0.032 - 0.042 - 0.044 - 0.044 - 0.041
224 - 0.058 - 0.051 - 0.057 - 0.060 - 0.062 - 0.058
* RDME: Relative Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity
Shrinkage Potential, ASTM C- 157
Age ( days)
Core
Rapid Chloride Permeability, ( Coulomb) ASTM C- 1202
Parameters
Freeze Thaw Resistance Test, ASTM C- 666 Method A
984
Variable
Modulus of Elasticity, ASTM C- 470
Parameters
Air Void System Analysis, ASTM C- 457
1.45
Parameters
Scaling Resistance, ASTM C- 672
Figure E- 1a
May 5, 2005 Summary of Compressive Strength Test Results
Deck Placment
Average
3 3,607
7 4,483
28 6,478
Average
7 4,854
14 5,900
28 6,848
56 7,450
Average 7 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
7 4,981 5,700 5,870 5,080 4,320 4,610 4,230 4,420 4,540
14 5,319 5,940 5,940 5,160 4,790 4,920 4,990 5,040 4,920
28 6,428 6,690 6,840 6,190 6,020 7,070 6,050 6,050 5,510
56 7,410 7,610 7,960 7,110 7,040 7,820 6,860 7,250 6,760
Compilation of all test results
0
3
7
0
3,610
4,770
14
28
56
6,590
7,430
5,610
7,570
8,270
6,170
7,430
6,790 7,140
Age ( days)
Load Number
6,060
Sample 1
Sample 1
5,240
6,430
4,430
7,170 6,240
5,450
6,790
6,800
Sample 3
5,070
5,940
6,910
8,250
ADOT Test Results
WTI Test Results
Sample 2
4,480
Sample 2
3,750
4,660
6,640
Sample 3
3,560
Sample 5
4,780
5,920
6,550
Sample 4
4,700
5,760
6,420
4
8,280
Compressive
Strength
( psi)
Rinker Test Results
Age ( days)
Age ( days)
Age ( days)
Sample 5
6,150
Sample 4
3,510
4,360
6,190
Figure E- 1b
February 28, 2006
Figure E- 2
Compressive Strength of HPC for Sunshine Bridge Deck
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56
Age ( days)
Strength ( psi)
Average Strength
May 5, 2006 Length Change ( Shrinkage Potential)
Figure E- 3
- 0.050
- 0.040
- 0.030
- 0.020
- 0.010
0.000
0.010
0.020
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Age ( days)
Strength ( psi)
AVERAGE Sample 1 Sample 2
Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5
February 10, 2006
www. CTLGroup. com
Mr. Tarif Jaber Via E- Mail
Jaber Engineering
10827 E. Butherus Drive
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
E- Mail: tariff@ jaber- engineering. com
Concrete Testing – Sunshine Bridge Project
CTLGroup Project No. 395179
Dear Mr. Jaber:
Attached are results for concrete testing. You submitted five sets of concrete samples that were
received at CTLGroup on September 30, 2005. Each set consisted of two 4x8- in. concrete
cylinders, two 12x12x3- in. concrete slabs, and two 3x3x11- in. concrete beams. All samples
were reportedly cast on August 24, 2005. Per your e- mail of September 30, 2005, all samples
were moist cured until they reached 56 days of age.
The concrete samples were tested in accordance with the following test methods:
• AASHTO T 277– 96, " Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability
to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration"
• ASTM C 672/ C 672M– 03, “ Standard Test Method for Scaling Resistance of Concrete
Surfaces Exposed to Deicing Chemical”
• ASTM C 666/ C 666– 03, “ Standard Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid
Freezing and Thawing”
Set 1
Freeze- thaw samples were discontinued after 67 cycles due to the fact that relative dynamic
modulus dropped below 60% of the initial modulus. Also, the length change exceeded the
0.10% expansion criteria of ASTM C 666. Results are consistent with the air- void analysis
testing that showed that the air content was 2.2% ( CTLGroup Project No. 159074).
Set 2
After 300 freeze- thaw cycles, relative dynamic modulus dropped below 60% of the initial
modulus. The samples are considered not freeze- thaw durable. Air- analysis showed the air
content was 4%.
Main Office 5400 Old Orchard Road Skokie, Illinois 60077- 1030 Phone 847- 965- 7500 Fax 847- 965- 6541
Northeast Office 5565 Sterrett Place, Suite 312 Columbia, Maryland 21044- 2685 Phone 410- 997- 0400 Fax 410- 997- 8480
Figure E- 4
Page 1 of 7
Mr. Tarif Jaber CTLGroup Project No. 395179
Jaber Engineering February 10, 2006
Page 2 of 22
Set 3
After 300 freeze- thaw cycles, relative dynamic modulus dropped below 60% of the initial
modulus. The samples are considered not freeze- thaw durable. Air- analysis showed the air
content was 4.7%.
Set 4
Relative dynamic modulus indicates the samples are freeze- thaw durable. Air- analysis showed
the air content was 5.2%.
Set 5
Relative dynamic modulus indicates the samples are freeze- thaw durable. Air- analysis showed
the air content was 6.5%.
We will retain the remainder of the samples until May 9, 2006 at which time they will be
discarded unless we hear otherwise from you.
We appreciate the opportunity to conduct specialized testing for you again. Should you have
any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
T. Muresan W. Morrison
Associate Materials Technologist Principal Materials Technologist
Materials Testing and Analysis Materials Consulting
TMuresan@ CTLGroup. com WMorrison@ CTLGroup. com
Phone: ( 847) 972- 3160 Phone: ( 847) 972- 3162
www. CTLGroup. com
Figure E- 4
Page 2 of 7
Client: Jaber Engineering CTLGroup Project No.: 395179
Project: Sunshine Bridge Materials Testing CTLGroup Proj. Manager: T. Muresan
Contact: Mr. Tarif Jaber Technician: B. Szczerowski
Submitter: Mr. Tarif Jaber Approved: W. Morrison
Date: January 12, 2006
AASHTO T 277, Rapid Chloride Ion Penetration, 4x8- in. cylinders, Coulombs
Sample A Sample B
56 Days 983 953
ASTM C 672, Scaling Resistance, 12x12x3- in. slabs, visual rating
50 Cycles, average of two samples 1.8
ASTM C 666, Freezing and Thawing - Procedure A, 3x3x11- in. beams, RDM%
67 Cycles, average of two samples 22
Note:
After 67 freeze- thaw cycles, relative dynamic modulus dropped below 60% of the initial modulus.
Also length change exceeded the 0.10% expansion criteria. The samples were removed from test.
www. CTLGroup. com
Concrete Testing
Set 1
Figure E- 4
Page 3 of 7
Client: Jaber Engineering CTLGroup Project No.: 395179
Project: Sunshine Bridge Materials Testing CTLGroup Proj. Manager: T. Muresan
Contact: Mr. Tarif Jaber Technician: B. Szczerowski
Submitter: Mr. Tarif Jaber Approved: W. Morrison
Date: February 9, 2006
AASHTO T 277, Rapid Chloride Ion Penetration, 4x8- in. cylinders, Coulombs
Sample A Sample B
56 Days 1042 973
ASTM C 672, Scaling Resistance, 12x12x3- in. slabs, visual rating
50 Cycles, average of two samples 1.3
ASTM C 666, Freezing and Thawing - Procedure A, 3x3x11- in. beams, RDM%
300 Cycles, average of two samples 54
Note:
After 300 freeze- thaw cycles, relative dynamic modulus dropped below 60% of the initial modulus.
The samples are considered not freeze- thaw durable.
www. CTLGroup. com
Concrete Testing
Set 2
Figure E- 4
Page 4 of 7
Client: Jaber Engineering CTLGroup Project No.: 395179
Project: Sunshine Bridge Materials Testing CTLGroup Proj. Manager: T. Muresan
Contact: Mr. Tarif Jaber Technician: B. Szczerowski
Submitter: Mr. Tarif Jaber Approved: W. Morrison
Date: January 12, 2006
AASHTO T 277, Rapid Chloride Ion Penetration, 4x8- in. cylinders, Coulombs
Sample A Sample B
56 Days 1029 944
ASTM C 672, Scaling Resistance, 12x12x3- in. slabs, visual rating
50 Cycles, average of two samples 2.3
ASTM C 666, Freezing and Thawing - Procedure A, 3x3x11- in. beams, RDM%
300 Cycles, average of two samples 58
Note:
After 300 freeze- thaw cycles, relative dynamic modulus dropped below 60% of the initial modulus.
The samples are considered not freeze- thaw durable.
www. CTLGroup. com
Concrete Testing
Set 3
Figure E- 4
Page 5 of 7
Client: Jaber Engineering CTLGroup Project No.: 395179
Project: Sunshine Bridge Materials Testing CTLGroup Proj. Manager: T. Muresan
Contact: Mr. Tarif Jaber Technician: B. Szczerowski
Submitter: Mr. Tarif Jaber Approved: W. Morrison
Date: February 9, 2006
AASHTO T 277, Rapid Chloride Ion Penetration, 4x8- in. cylinders, Coulombs
Sample A Sample B
56 Days 1123 989
ASTM C 672, Scaling Resistance, 12x12x3- in. slabs, visual rating
50 Cycles, average of two samples 1.0
ASTM C 666, Freezing and Thawing - Procedure A, 3x3x11- in. beams, RDM%
300 Cycles, average of two samples 88
www. CTLGroup. com
Concrete Testing
Set 4
Figure E- 4
Page 6 of 7
Client: Jaber Engineering CTLGroup Project No.: 395179
Project: Sunshine Bridge Materials Testing CTLGroup Proj. Manager: T. Muresan
Contact: Mr. Tarif Jaber Technician: B. Szczerowski
Submitter: Mr. Tarif Jaber Approved: W. Morrison
Date: February 9, 2006
AASHTO T 277, Rapid Chloride Ion Penetration, 4x8- in. cylinders, Coulombs
Sample A Sample B
57 Days 936 871
ASTM C 672, Scaling Resistance, 12x12x3- in. slabs, visual rating
50 Cycles, average of two samples 1.0
ASTM C 666, Freezing and Thawing - Procedure A, 3x3x11- in. beams, RDM%
300 Cycles, average of two samples 91
www. CTLGroup. com
Concrete Testing
Set 5
Figure E- 4
Page 7 of 7
www. CTLGroup. com
Client: Jaber Engineering CTL Project No.: 395179
Project: Sunshine Bridge Materials Testing CTL Project Mgr.: T. Muresan
Contact: Mr. Tarif Jaber
Submitter: Mr. Tarif Jaber
Technician: P. Brindise
Approved: W. Morrison
Date: October 20, 2005
______________________________________________________________________________
RAPID CHLORIDE PENETRATION RESULTS
ASTM C 1202
Sample No. Charge Passed Relative
( Client ID) Test Date ( Coulombs) Chloride Permeability
Set 1 Sample A 10- 19- 05 983 Very Low
Set 1 Sample B 10- 19- 05 953 Very Low
Sample Type: 4- in. diameter concrete cylinders.
Age Since Casting: 56 days from the client’s reported cast date of August 24, 2005.
Specimens History: The cylinders were received at CTLGroup in moist condition. Upon
receipt at CTLGroup, the specimens were immersed in saturated
limewater until prepared for test.
______________________________________________________________________________
See ASTM C 1202 Table below for interpretation of results.
Charge
Passed Chloride
Coulombs Permeability
> 4000 High
2000- 4000 Moderate
1000- 2000 Low
100- 1000 Very low
< 100 Negligible
Figure E- 5
Page 1 of 5
www. CTLGroup. com
Client: Jaber Engineering CTL Project No.: 395179
Project: Sunshine Bridge Materials Testing CTL Project Mgr.: T. Muresan
Contact: Mr. Tarif Jaber
Submitter: Mr. Tarif Jaber
Technician: P. Brindise
Approved: W. Morrison
Date: October 20, 2005
______________________________________________________________________________
RAPID CHLORIDE PENETRATION RESULTS
ASTM C 1202
Sample No. Charge Passed Relative
( Client ID) Test Date ( Coulombs) Chloride Permeability
Set 2 Sample A 10- 19- 05 1042 Low
Set 2 Sample B 10- 19- 05 973 Very Low
Sample Type: 4- in. diameter concrete cylinders.
Age Since Casting: 56 days from the client’s reported cast date of August 24, 2005.
Specimens History: The cylinders were received at CTLGroup in moist condition. Upon
receipt at CTLGroup, the specimens were immersed in saturated
limewater until prepared for test.
______________________________________________________________________________
See ASTM C 1202 Table below for interpretation of results.
Charge
Passed Chloride
Coulombs Permeability
> 4000 High
2000- 4000 Moderate
1000- 2000 Low
100- 1000 Very low
< 100 Negligible
Figure E- 5
Page 2 of 5
www. CTLGroup. com
Client: Jaber Engineering CTL Project No.: 395179
Project: Sunshine Bridge Materials Testing CTL Project Mgr.: T. Muresan
Contact: Mr. Tarif Jaber
Submitter: Mr. Tarif Jaber
Technician: P. Brindise
Approved: W. Morrison
Date: October 20, 2005
______________________________________________________________________________
RAPID CHLORIDE PENETRATION RESULTS
ASTM C 1202
Sample No. Charge Passed Relative
( Client ID) Test Date ( Coulombs) Chloride Permeability
Set 3 Sample A 10- 19- 05 1029 Low
Set 3 Sample B 10- 19- 05 944 Very Low
Sample Type: 4- in. diameter concrete cylinders.
Age Since Casting: 56 days from the client’s reported cast date of August 24, 2005.
Specimens History: The cylinders were received at CTLGroup in moist condition. Upon
receipt at CTLGroup, the specimens were immersed in saturated
limewater until prepared for test.
______________________________________________________________________________
See ASTM C 1202 Table below for interpretation of results.
Charge
Passed Chloride
Coulombs Permeability
> 4000 High
2000- 4000 Moderate
1000- 2000 Low
100- 1000 Very low
< 100 Negligible
Figure E- 5
Page 3 of 5
www. CTLGroup. com
Client: Jaber Engineering CTL Project No.: 395179
Project: Sunshine Bridge Materials Testing CTL Project Mgr.: T. Muresan
Contact: Mr. Tarif Jaber
Submitter: Mr. Tarif Jaber
Technician: P. Brindise
Approved: W. Morrison
Date: October 20, 2005
______________________________________________________________________________
RAPID CHLORIDE PENETRATION RESULTS
ASTM C 1202
Sample No. Charge Passed Relative
( Client ID) Test Date ( Coulombs) Chloride Permeability
Set 4 Sample A 10- 19- 05 1123 Low
Set 4 Sample B 10- 19- 05 989 Very Low
Sample Type: 4- in. diameter concrete cylinders.
Age Since Casting: 56 days from the client’s reported cast date of August 24, 2005.
Specimens History: The cylinders were received at CTLGroup in moist condition. Upon
receipt at CTLGroup, the specimens were immersed in saturated
limewater until prepared for test.
______________________________________________________________________________
See ASTM C 1202 Table below for interpretation of results.
Charge
Passed Chloride
Coulombs Permeability
> 4000 High
2000- 4000 Moderate
1000- 2000 Low
100- 1000 Very low
< 100 Negligible
Figure E- 5
Page 4 of 5
www. CTLGroup. com
Client: Jaber Engineering CTL Project No.: 395179
Project: Sunshine Bridge Materials Testing CTL Project Mgr.: T. Muresan
Contact: Mr. Tarif Jaber
Submitter: Mr. Tarif Jaber
Technician: P. Brindise
Approved: W. Morrison
Date: October 20, 2005
______________________________________________________________________________
RAPID CHLORIDE PENETRATION RESULTS
ASTM C 1202
Sample No. Charge Passed Relative
( Client ID) Test Date ( Coulombs) Chloride Permeability
Set 5 Sample A 10- 20- 05 936 Very Low
Set 5 Sample B 10- 20- 05 871 Very Low
Sample Type: 4- in. diameter concrete cylinders.
Age Since Casting: 57 days from the client’s reported cast date of August 24, 2005.
Specimens History: The cylinders were received at CTLGroup in moist condition. Upon
receipt at CTLGroup, the specimens were immersed in saturated
limewater until prepared for test.
______________________________________________________________________________
See ASTM C 1202 Table below for interpretation of results.
Charge
Passed Chloride
Coulombs Permeability
> 4000 High
2000- 4000 Moderate
1000- 2000 Low
100- 1000 Very low
< 100 Negligible
Figure E- 5
Page 5 of 5
Client: Jaber Engineering CTLGroup Proj. No.: 395179
Project: Sunshine Bridge Materials Testing CTLGroup Proj. Mgr.: T. Muresan
Contact: Mr. Tarif Jaber Technician: B. Szczerowski
Submitter: Mr. Tarif Jaber Approved: W. Morrison
Date: January 12, 2006
Test Results of ASTM C 666 - Procedure A
Freezing and Thawing in Water of Concrete Specimens†
Samples Freeze- Thaw Length Mass Relative Dynamic
Identification Cycles Change, % Change, % Modulus, %
0 0 0.00 100
Set 1 32 0.08 0.04 50
A and B 67 0.17 0.07 22
† Values are the average of two specimens.
Note:
After 67 freeze- thaw cycles, relative dynamic modulus dropped below 60% of the initial modulus.
Also length change exceeded the 0.10% expansion criteria. The samples were removed from test.
www. CTLGroup. com
Relative Dynamic Modulus
0
25
50
75
100
125
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Freeze- Thaw Cycles
RDM, %
Figure E- 6
Page 1 of 5
Client: Jaber Engineering CTLGroup Proj. No.: 395179
Project: Sunshine Bridge Materials Testing CTLGroup Proj. Mgr.: T. Muresan
Contact: Mr. Tarif Jaber Technician: B. Szczerowski
Submitter: Mr. Tarif Jaber Approved: W. Morrison
Date: February 9, 2006
Test Results of ASTM C 666 - Procedure A
Freezing and Thawing in Water of Concrete Specimens†
Samples Freeze- Thaw Length Mass Relative Dynamic
Identification Cycles Change, % Change, % Modulus, %
0 0 0.00 100
Set 2 32 0.02 - 0.08 89
A and B 67 0.02 - 0.08 85
101 0.02 - 0.05 85
136 0.03 - 0.15 79
171 0.02 - 0.43 75
203 0.04 - 0.99 67
234 0.04 - 1.67 67
266 0.04 - 2.70 65
300 0.05 - 3.60 54
† Values are the average of two specimens.
Note:
After 300 freeze- thaw cycles, relative dynamic modulus dropped below 60% of the initial modulus.
The samples are considered not freeze- thaw durable.
www. CTLGroup. com
Relative Dynamic Modulus
0
25
50
75
100
125
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Freeze- Thaw Cycles
RDM, %
Figure E- 6
Page 2 of 5
Client: Jaber Engineering CTLGroup Proj. No.: 395179
Project: Sunshine Bridge Materials Testing CTLGroup Proj. Mgr.: T. Muresan
Contact: Mr. Tarif Jaber Technician: B. Szczerowski
Submitter: Mr. Tarif Jaber Approved: W. Morrison
Date: February 9, 2006
Test Results of ASTM C 666 - Procedure A
Freezing and Thawing in Water of Concrete Specimens†
Samples Freeze- Thaw Length Mass Relative Dynamic
Identification Cycles Change, % Change, % Modulus, %
0 0 0.00 100
Set 3 32 0.00 - 0.17 92
A and B 67 0.00 - 0.17 88
101 0.00 - 0.20 89
136 0.01 - 0.29 83
171 0.01 - 0.61 82
203 0.02 - 1.60 75
234 0.02 - 2.39 67
266 0.03 - 2.94 68
300 0.03 - 3.92 58
† Values are the average of two specimens.
Note:
After 300 freeze- thaw cycles, relative dynamic modulus dropped below 60% of the initial modulus.
The samples are considered not freeze- thaw durable.
www. CTLGroup. com
Relative Dynamic Modulus
0
25
50
75
100
125
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Freeze- Thaw Cycles
RDM, %
Figure E- 6
Page 3 of 5
Client: Jaber Engineering CTLGroup Proj. No.: 395179
Project: Sunshine Bridge Materials Testing CTLGroup Proj. Mgr.: T. Muresan
Contact: Mr. Tarif Jaber Technician: B. Szczerowski
Submitter: Mr. Tarif Jaber Approved: W. Morrison
Date: February 9, 2006
Test Results of ASTM C 666 - Procedure A
Freezing and Thawing in Water of Concrete Specimens†
Samples Freeze- Thaw Length Mass Relative Dynamic
Identification Cycles Change, % Change, % Modulus, %
0 0 0.00 100
Set 4 32 0.01 - 0.13 96
A and B 67 0.01 - 0.15 94
101 0.01 - 0.17 95
136 0.01 - 0.31 92
171 0.00 - 0.46 93
203 0.01 - 1.15 91
234 0.01 - 1.79 90
266 0.01 - 2.69 92
300 0.00 - 3.77 88
† Values are the average of two specimens.
www. CTLGroup. com
Relative Dynamic Modulus
0
25
50
75
100
125
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Freeze- Thaw Cycles
RDM, %
Figure E- 6
Page 4 of 5
Client: Jaber Engineering CTLGroup Proj. No.: 395179
Project: Sunshine Bridge Materials Testing CTLGroup Proj. Mgr.: T. Muresan
Contact: Mr. Tarif Jaber Technician: B. Szczerowski
Submitter: Mr. Tarif Jaber Approved: W. Morrison
Date: February 9, 2006
Test Results of ASTM C 666 - Procedure A
Freezing and Thawing in Water of Concrete Specimens†
Samples Freeze- Thaw Length Mass Relative Dynamic
Identification Cycles Change, % Change, % Modulus, %
0 0 0.00 100
Set 5 32 - 0.01 - 0.14 95
A and B 67 - 0.01 - 0.21 96
101 - 0.01 - 0.26 96
136 - 0.01 - 0.51 94
171 - 0.02 - 0.86 95
203 - 0.01 - 1.55 93
234 - 0.01 - 2.32 93
266 - 0.01 - 3.21 95
300 - 0.01 - 3.91 91
† Values are the average of two specimens.
www. CTLGroup. com
Relative Dynamic Modulus
0
25
50
75
100
125
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Freeze- Thaw Cycles
RDM, %
Figure E- 6
Page 5 of 5
Client: Jaber Engineering CTLGroup Proj. No.: 395179
Project: Sunshine Bridge Materials Testing CTLGroup Proj. Mgr.: T. Muresan
Contact: Mr. Tarif Jaber Technician: B. Szczerowski
Submitter: Mr. Tarif Jaber Approved: W. Morrison
Date: January 12, 2006
Cummulative Mass Loss, lb/ ft2 Visual Scale Rating ( ASTM C 672)
Cycle A B Avg. A B Avg.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.5 0.0 0.3
10 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.5 0.0 0.3
15 0.04 0.01 0.03 1.0 1.0 1.0
20 0.04 0.01 0.03 1.0 1.0 1.0
25 0.04 0.01 0.03 1.0 1.0 1.0
30 0.04 0.01 0.03 1.0 1.0 1.0
35 0.04 0.02 0.03 1.0 1.0 1.0
40 0.05 0.04 0.04 1.0 1.5 1.3
45 0.05 0.04 0.04 1.0 1.5 1.3
50 0.05 0.04 0.05 1.5 2.0 1.8
Notes: Rating / Condition of Surface
Deicing solution 4% calcium chloride. 0 - no scaling
1 - very slight scaling ( 1/ 8 in. depth max, no coarse aggregate visible)
2 - slight to moderate scaling
3 - moderate scaling ( some coarse aggregate visible)
4 - moderate to severe scaling
5 - severe scaling ( coarse aggregate visible over entire surface)
www. CTLGroup. com
Test Results - ASTM C 672
Scaling Resistance of Concrete Surface Exposed to Deicing Chemicals
for Two 12x12x3- in. Slabs Identified as " Set 1 A and B"
Cumulative Mass Loss Versus Cycles
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Cycles
Cumulative Mass Loss, lb/ ft2
Set 1
Figure E- 7
Page 1 of 5
Client: Jaber Engineering CTLGroup Proj. No.: 395179
Project: Sunshine Bridge Materials Testing CTLGroup Proj. Mgr.: T. Muresan
Contact: Mr. Tarif Jaber Technician: B. Szczerowski
Submitter: Mr. Tarif Jaber Approved: W. Morrison
Date: January 12, 2006
Cummulative Mass Loss, lb/ ft2 Visual Scale Rating ( ASTM C 672)
Cycle A B Avg. A B Avg.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.5 0.0 0.3
10 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.5 0.0 0.3
15 0.03 0.00 0.02 1.0 1.0 1.0
20 0.03 0.00 0.02 1.0 1.0 1.0
25 0.03 0.00 0.02 1.0 1.0 1.0
30 0.03 0.00 0.02 1.0 1.0 1.0
35 0.03 0.00 0.02 1.0 1.0 1.0
40 0.04 0.01 0.02 1.5 1.0 1.3
45 0.04 0.01 0.02 1.5 1.0 1.3
50 0.04 0.01 0.03 1.5 1.0 1.3
Notes: Rating / Condition of Surface
Deicing solution