Está en la página 1de 187

A Comparative Study of Shrinkage and Cracking of High Performance Concrete Mixtures for Bridge Decks

Jennifer Morris

Thesis submitted to the College of Engineering and Mineral Resources at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Engineering

Julio F. Davalos, Ph.D., Chair Indrajit Ray, Ph.D., Co-Chair Karl E. Barth, Ph.D. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Morgantown, West Virginia 2002

Keywords: high performance concrete, HPC, shrinkage, creep, cracking, latex, SRA

ABSTRACT A Comparative Study of Shrinkage and Cracking of High-Performance Concrete Mixtures for Bridge Decks Jennifer Morris To alleviate the deterioration of concrete structures, High-Performance Concrete (HPC) is extensively used, particularly for bridge decks, due to its favorable durability characteristics. However, there is a problem with the high cracking tendency of HPC due to its high early shrinkage, low water-cementitious ratio, brittleness and low creep. Thus, the HPC advantages of high compressive strength and low permeability are somewhat offset by cracking problems, which reduce the service life of bridge decks. To improve this problem, the goal of this study is to modify conventional HPC mixtures with admixtures or modifiers to obtain low-cracking or no-cracking formulations using West Virginia aggregates. Using a normal concrete (NC) as a bench-mark, a total of four distinct HPC mixtures were studied: conventional HPC termed Class H by the WVDOH, HPC with shrinkage reducing admixture (HPC-SRA), HPC with latex (HPC-L), and HPC with high latex content or Overlay Latex-Modified Concrete (OLMC) as used by the WVDOH. By maintaining constant aggregate-paste volume ratio, the performance of these mixtures was evaluated through a number of tests: compressive strength, split tensile strength, free shrinkage, restrained shrinkage with ring specimens at early age, cracking tendency by measuring crack onset and width, chloride permeability, and creep for a few cases. Following ACI 363, the results showed that HPC-L and OLMC are less brittle than the other mixtures. Free-shrinkage results indicated that shrinkage-reducing admixture (HPC-SRA) minimized shrinkage significantly, followed by the addition of latex (HPC-L and OLMC). In relation to a proposed shrinkage model developed in this study, particularly for HPC-SRA and OLMC, the existing ACI 209 prediction overestimated the values, except for NC and HPC. For cracking response of restrained shrinkage, OLMC performed the best with no cracks after 90 days, followed by cracking onset for HPC-L at 60 days and HPC-SRA at 33 days. The nearly negligible free shrinkage of HPC-SRA did not prevent crack formation during restrained shrinkage. The onset of cracks for both NC and HPC occurred early, at 18 and 27 days respectively, and HPC exhibited the highest number of cracks than all other mixtures; this behavior of HPC is explained by simply analyzing the results for tensile strength, shrinkage and creep. Overall, the performance of OLMC and HPC-L was best in terms of strength, chloride permeability, and shrinkage and cracking. This study will provide better focus to continued in-depth research into mixture optimization to achieve nearly crack-free HPC mixtures under field restrained shrinkage conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank Dr. David Martinelli and Dr. Julio Davalos, the chair of my committee, for enabling my swift admission into the College of Engineering just prior to the start of the school year and allowing me to join a research program in structures. My research would not have been possible were it not for the immense concrete knowledge of Dr. Indrajit Ray and his guidance in the writing of my thesis. I would also like to thank Dr. Karl Barth for serving on my committee. Wenbo Zang made my transition into the concrete research much easier by helping me become familiar with the mixing and testing procedures in the concrete lab and I sincerely appreciate it. The laboratory work itself would not have been possible were it not for the gracious assistance from Martin Padula and Ribal El-Amine. Your time and effort outside of the regular workday was much appreciated and I thank you immensely. Additional assistance from Justin Robinson, David Turner and Bill Comstock in the equipment maintenance and set up is duly noted and thanked. Funding for this project was provided by the WVDOT-DOH and is gratefully acknowledged. Also, this research would not have been possible without the gracious donation of materials from the following companies: Arrow Concrete Company, Dow Corning, Dow Chemical, Hoy Redi Mix Company, and Master Builders.

iii

Table of Contents
Title Page ...................................................................................................................i Abstract ......................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgement .....................................................................................................iii Table of Contents.......................................................................................................iv List of Figures ............................................................................................................viii List of Tables .............................................................................................................x Chapter 1: Introduction ..........................................................................................1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 Research Background ........................................................................1 Research Objectives and Tasks..........................................................2 Research Plan.....................................................................................2 Thesis Organization ...........................................................................3 Introduction........................................................................................5 Curing ................................................................................................6 Shrinkage ...........................................................................................7 2.3.1 Plastic Shrinkage....................................................................8 2.3.2 Autogenous Shrinkage ...........................................................9 2.3.3 Drying Shrinkage ...................................................................9 2.3.4 Carbonation Shrinkage...........................................................11 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6 Factors Influencing Shrinkage ...............................................12 Free Shrinkage Test Method..................................................14 Factors Influencing Creep......................................................16 Effects of Creep .....................................................................18 Creep Test ..............................................................................19 The RCPT Methods and Information ....................................20 Concerns and Research Regarding the RCPT .......................21

Chapter 2: Background and Literature Review ...................................................5

Creep ..................................................................................................15

Rapid Chloride Permeability Test......................................................19

The Ring Test Method .......................................................................23

iv

2.6.1 2.6.2

Ring Test Set Up and Theory on Cracking............................24 Test Methods and Results Using Ring Set Up.......................29 2.6.2.1 Study by Li et al. (1999) ............................................29 2.6.2.2 Study by Shah et al. (1992)........................................31 2.6.2.3 Study by Wiegrink et al. (1996).................................33 2.6.2.4 Study by Grzybowski and Shah (1990) .....................35

2.7 2.8 3.1 3.2

NCHRP Report by Krauss and Rogalla .............................................37 Research Significance........................................................................40 Introduction........................................................................................42 Materials ............................................................................................42 3.2.1 Portland Cement.....................................................................42 3.2.2 Coarse Aggregate...................................................................44 3.2.3 Fine Aggregate.......................................................................46 3.2.4 Fly Ash...................................................................................47 3.2.5 Silica Fume ............................................................................48 3.2.6 Chemical Admixtures ............................................................49 3.2.6.1 High Range Water-Reducing Admixture...................50 3.2.6.2 Air Entraining Admixture ..........................................51 3.2.6.3 Shrinkage-Reducing Admixture ................................52 3.2.6.4 Latex ..........................................................................53 3.2.6.5 Defoamer....................................................................54 3.2.7 Water......................................................................................54

Chapter 3: Experimental Program ........................................................................42

3.3 3.4 3.5

Mixture Proportions ...........................................................................55 Mixing Procedures .............................................................................57 Preparation of Test Specimens...........................................................59 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.5.5 Cylinder Specimens for Compressive Strength Test .............59 Cylinder Specimens for Split Tensile Strength Test..............59 Disk Specimens for Rapid Chloride Permeability Test .........60 Prism Specimens for Length Change Measurements ............61 Ring Specimens for Crack Monitoring ..................................62

3.5.6 3.5.7 3.6 3.6.1

Prism Specimens for Creep Test............................................64 Curing of Different Types of Test Specimens .......................66 Fresh Concrete Tests..............................................................67 3.6.1.1 Slump .........................................................................67 3.6.1.2 Air Content.................................................................67 3.6.1.3 Unit Weight................................................................68 3.6.1.4 Temperature ...............................................................68

Testing Procedures.............................................................................66

3.6.2

Hardened Concrete Tests .......................................................68 3.6.2.1 Compressive Strength Test ........................................69 3.6.2.2 Split Tensile Strength Test.........................................69 3.6.2.3 Length Change Measurement Test ............................70 3.6.2.4 Restrained Shrinkage of Ring Specimens..................72 3.6.2.5 Rapid Chloride Permeability Test..............................73 3.6.2.6 Creep Test ..................................................................75

Chapter 4: Test Results and Discussions ...............................................................77 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Appendix A Introduction........................................................................................77 Fresh Concrete Properties ..................................................................77 Compressive Strength and Split Tensile Strength Results.................79 Length Change Measurement Results ...............................................89 Creep Test Results .............................................................................106 Discussion of Ring Specimen Cracking ...........................................109 Rapid Chloride Permeability Test Results.........................................119 Introduction........................................................................................123 Summary of Results...........................................................................123 Cost Analysis .....................................................................................127 Conclusions........................................................................................131 Suggestions for Future Research .......................................................132 Compressive Strength and Split Tensile Strength Results.................142

Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusions ..................................................................123

References..................................................................................................................134

vi

Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E

Length Change Measurement Test Results........................................147 Rapid Chloride Permeability Test Results.........................................158 Creep Test Results .............................................................................164 Crack Data Results.............................................................................171

vii

List of Figures
Figure 2.1 .......Schematic of the Ring Test ...............................................................28 Figure 3.1 .......Portland Cement.................................................................................44 Figure 3.2 .......River Gravel.......................................................................................45 Figure 3.3 .......River Sand..........................................................................................47 Figure 3.4 .......Fly Ash...............................................................................................48 Figure 3.5 .......Silica Fume ........................................................................................49 Figure 3.6 .......High Range Water-Reducing Admixture and Container ...................50 Figure 3.7 .......Air Entraining Admixture and Container ..........................................51 Figure 3.8 .......Shrinkage-Reducing Admixture and Container.................................52 Figure 3.9 .......Latex Admixture and Container.........................................................53 Figure 3.10 .....Defoamer and Bottle ..........................................................................54 Figure 3.11 .....Rotary Mixer......................................................................................58 Figure 3.12 .....Typical Cylinder Specimen................................................................60 Figure 3.13 .....Typical Disk Specimen ......................................................................61 Figure 3.14 .....Typical Prism Specimen ....................................................................62 Figure 3.15 .....Schematic of Ring Set Up..................................................................63 Figure 3.16 .....Typical Ring Specimen......................................................................64 Figure 3.17 .....Typical Beam Specimen ....................................................................65 Figure 3.18 .....Length Change Apparatus with Rod..................................................71 Figure 3.19 .....Length Change Apparatus with Specimen.........................................71 Figure 3.20 .....Microscope with Magnification x40 to Measure Crack Width .........72 Figure 3.21 .....Rapid Chloride Permeability Test......................................................75 Figure 3.22 .....Creep Machine ...................................................................................76 Figure 4.1 .......Compressive Strength at Various Ages .............................................85 Figure 4.2 .......Split Tensile Strength at Various Ages..............................................85 Figure 4.3 .......Normalized Compressive Strength for All Mixtures .........................86 Figure 4.4 .......Normalized Split Tensile Strength for All Mixtures..........................86 Figure 4.5 .......Relationship Between Split Tensile Strength and Square Root of Compressive Strength ........................................................................87

viii

Figure 4.6 .......Free Shrinkage and Moisture Loss for NC ........................................92 Figure 4.7 .......Free Shrinkage and Moisture Loss for HPC ......................................92 Figure 4.8 .......Free Shrinkage and Moisture Loss for HPC-SRA.............................93 Figure 4.9 .......Free Shrinkage and Moisture Loss for HPC-L ..................................93 Figure 4.10 .....Free Shrinkage and Moisture Loss for OLMC ..................................94 Figure 4.11 .....Free Shrinkage for All Mixture Types...............................................95 Figure 4.12 .....Free Shrinkage versus Moisture Loss ................................................95 Figure 4.13 .....Best-Fit Linear Equation for NC Free Shrinkage Strain....................100 Figure 4.14 .....Best-Fit Linear Equation for HPC Free Shrinkage Strain .................100 Figure 4.15 .....Best-Fit Linear Equation for HPC-SRA Free Shrinkage Strain ........101 Figure 4.16 .....Best-Fit Linear Equation for HPC-L Free Shrinkage Strain..............101 Figure 4.17 .....Best-Fit Linear Equation for OLMC Free Shrinkage Strain..............102 Figure 4.18 .....Predictions for Free Shrinkage Strain in NC .....................................103 Figure 4.19 .....Predictions for Free Shrinkage Strain in HPC ...................................103 Figure 4.20 .....Predictions for Free Shrinkage Strain in HPC-SRA ..........................104 Figure 4.21 .....Predictions for Free Shrinkage Strain in HPC-L ...............................104 Figure 4.22 .....Predictions for Free Shrinkage Strain in OLMC ...............................105 Figure 4.23 .....Specific Creep for NC and HPC ........................................................109 Figure 4.24 .....Crack Data for NC with Best-Fit Equation........................................110 Figure 4.25 .....Crack Data for HPC with Best-Fit Equation......................................111 Figure 4.26 .....Crack Data for HPC-SRA with Best-Fit Equation ............................111 Figure 4.27 .....Crack Data for HPC-L with Best-Fit Equation..................................112 Figure 4.28 .....Comparison of Crack Data for All Mixtures .....................................113 Figure 4.29 .....Average Crack Width after 75 Days of Drying .................................113 Figure 4.30 .....Charge Passed in RCPT for All Mixtures..........................................120 Figure 4.31 .....Comparison of Chloride Permeability among Mixtures....................120

ix

List of Tables
Table 3.1 ........Material Composition of Type I Portland Cement ............................43 Table 3.2 ........Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate..................................................45 Table 3.3 ........Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate......................................................46 Table 3.4 ........Mixture Designations.........................................................................56 Table 3.5 ........Mixture Proportions in US Customary Units.....................................56 Table 4.1 ........Fresh Concrete Properties ..................................................................78 Table 4.2 ........Compressive Strength at Various Ages for All Mixtures ..................82 Table 4.3 ........Split Tensile Strength at Various Ages for All Mixtures...................84 Table 4.4 ........Comparison of Slopes and R2 Values from ACI Relationship ..........88 Table 4.5 ........Compressive Strength Comparison of Batches..................................91 Table 4.6 ........Correction Factors for Each Mixture .................................................97 Table 4.7 ........Constant Used in Free Shrinkage Strain Prediction...........................102 Table 4.8 ........Crack Data for All Mixtures ..............................................................115 Table 4.9 ........Ring Specimen Cracking Predictions Based on Estimated Stress-Strain Parameters ...................................................................118 Table 4.10 ......Charge Passed (Coulombs) in RCPT for All Mixtures......................119 Table 4.11 ......Total Charge Passed with ASTM Rating for All Mixtures................121 Table 5.1 ........Ranking of the Concrete Mixtures for Various Tests ........................126 Table 5.2 ........Total Points Ranking for All Mixtures ..............................................127 Table 5.3 ........Price per Unit for all Materials and Suppliers ...................................128 Table 5.4 ........Cost Analysis for NC .........................................................................128 Table 5.5 ........Cost Analysis for HPC.......................................................................129 Table 5.6 ........Cost Analysis for HPC-SRA..............................................................129 Table 5.7 ........Cost Analysis for HPC-L ...................................................................130 Table 5.8 ........Cost Analysis for OLMC ...................................................................130 Table 5.9 ........Price Comparison for All Mixtures....................................................131

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research Background

Concrete is a material used in many civil engineering projects. Most commonly concrete can be found in buildings, bridges and highways. In order to build more durable structures a new class of concrete termed high-performance concrete (HPC) has been implemented. HPC has become exceedingly popular in recent years throughout the United States due to its high strength, low permeability, long-term durability and high modulus of elasticity. HPC is being used in highways, bridge decks and overlays at an increasing rate. Trends have begun to develop in structures containing HPC. Specifically in bridge overlays, cracks are forming at early ages on the bridge surfaces. This has become a large concern for the advocates of HPC. Researchers have recognized that HPC has many benefits and are intent on improving the cracking issues related to high performance concrete mixtures. Much research has revolved around why this cracking is occurring and ways to reduce or alleviate it. Realizing both the benefits and short comings of HPC, the West Virginia Department of Highways initiated a large-scale and comprehensive study at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of West Virginia University to develop HPC mixtures using local aggregates. Previous work by a fellow graduate

student laid the basis for the HPC mixture proportions (Zhang 2001). The research now looks to compare five concrete mixtures on the basis of strength, chloride permeability, free shrinkage, restrained shrinkage, creep and cracking. The goal of this research is to study the amount and rate of shrinkage and cracking of different mixtures, while still maintaining acceptable strength and durability.

1.2 Research Objectives and Tasks

Taking the basic mixture proportions from a previous exploratory study of HPC (Zhang 2001), modifications were made and more specific aspects will be studied. The goal of this thesis is to study the shrinkage and cracking characteristics of HPC mixtures with various admixtures and compare the results, ultimately looking for one or more outstanding mixes. The present study was organized into the following tasks: 1. Development of varying mixtures 2. Evaluation of performance of mixtures 3. Analysis of test results and selection of optimum mixture

1.3 Research Plan

A total of five different mixtures were prepared, each one a variation of mixture proportions found in an earlier study (Zhang 2001), which conform to specifications from the WVDOH. The first mixture was normal concrete (NC) used as a reference material for the other mixtures. The second mixture was HPC using various admixtures, including

air entraining admixture (AEA) and high range water-reducing admixture (HRWRA). The third mixture was a variation on the HPC termed HPC-SRA because of the addition of a shrinkage-reducing admixture (SRA). The SRA was used to try to reduce shrinkage and therefore reduce cracking in the test specimens. The fourth mixture contained latex (HPC-L), and the fifth mixture was a variation on the latex mix. The fifth mixture was an overlay latex modified concrete (OLMC) designed to represent common overlays on bridge decks. Fresh concrete properties were determined for each mixture, which included slump, air content, unit weight and temperature. Tests conducted in the hardened state of each concrete mixture were compressive strength, split tensile strength, free shrinkage, restrained shrinkage, crack propagation, chloride permeability and creep. The data for all mixtures was then analyzed to select optimum mixtures based on the performance tests and an additional material cost analysis.

1.4 Thesis Organization

Chapter 2 presents the terminology, concepts and procedures associated with the study of concrete cracking, along with a literature review of similar research programs to the one performed here at WVU. The importance of curing, types and factors influencing shrinkage, definition and factors influencing creep, review of the rapid chloride permeability test, and both the theory and procedure of the ring test method will be discussed in the beginning part of Chapter 2. The literature review of various published research studies and the results will follow. Chapter 3 contains the present experimental program, which discusses the materials, sample preparation and all testing procedures.

Chapter 4 presents all the data and briefly discusses the results. Chapter 5 summarizes the results with a conclusion section, compares the results for all the mixtures, performs a material cost analysis and makes recommendations for further research in this area.

Chapter 2

BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Development and usage of HPC has opened new doors in the construction industry (Bloom and Bentur 1995). HPC has been used more frequently for bridge decks, roads and construction projects due to its high strength, high elastic modulus, low permeability, long-term durability and excellent workability. Unfortunately, the concrete used in the field does not always possess the characteristics listed above (Li et al. 1999). In the development and recent usage of HPC, it has become clear that high performance concrete has sensitivity to cracking (Bloom and Bentur 1995). Cracking in bridge decks has become a growing problem in recent years. Cracks can form in the early stages of bridge life, sometimes even before the bridge is open to traffic. Looking into the cause of this cracking, it is well established that concrete shrinks when subjected to a drying environment. If the shrinkage is restrained then tensile stresses develop and cracking may result. This cracking is a critical concern with bridge decks because of the presence of deicing chemicals, which can accelerate deck deterioration by corrosion of reinforcement and scaling of the deck surface (Weiss et al. 1998). This chapter presents some of the issues related to the cracking tendencies in concrete. All the topics are discussed with their influence and effect on HPC in mind,

since the goal of this study is to look at the cracking mechanisms and tendencies of HPC. In order to better understand the issue of cracking, this research program studies the strength, free shrinkage, restrained shrinkage for crack propagation and creep of HPC, along with the permeability of each mixture using the rapid chloride permeability test. The importance of curing, various types of shrinkage, creep, the rapid chloride permeability test and the ring test method utilizing restrained shrinkage will be covered in this chapter along with a section presenting a literature review of several experimental programs involving crack propagation, all similar to this present program of study.

2.2 Curing

In order to make a good quality concrete, proper placing and curing is of utmost importance. Curing is the term for the procedures taken to promote hydration in the cement by keeping the concrete as saturated as possible. If the loss of water is not prevented, the concrete fails to develop its full strength, shrinkage occurs, permeability increases and resistance to abrasion is reduced. For larger concrete structures, only the outer layer of the concrete is affected by curing, due to the lack of moisture movement deep within the structure. Curing is important to the outer surface of concrete because this is where the weathering, carbonation, abrasion and permeability issues occur. In order for hydration of cement to take place throughout the whole structure, the capillaries must be filled with water. Evaporation of water from the capillaries must be prevented and water loss by self-desiccation must be replaced from the outside environment. In

HPC the problem of self-desiccation is more acute due to its smaller capillary pores and the chance of early shrinkage is higher than for normal concrete. There are two main methods of curing and numerous variations of the procedures for each. When curing, either a wet curing method, which is probably the most common, or membrane curing method is used. Wet curing involves providing water on the surface of the structure, which can be absorbed by the concrete. This is accomplished by continuous spraying of water, called ponding, or covering the concrete surface with wet burlap, sand, sawdust, straw or cotton mats. This allows the concrete to absorb water as necessary to continue hydration and avoid drying shrinkage. The second method of curing relies on the prevention of loss of water from the surface of the concrete without external sources of water for the concrete to absorb. Common materials used as a water barrier are polyethylene sheets or a spray of synthetic hydrocarbon resins, which form a membrane. However, in HPC the former method is recommended. Regardless of the type of method used, curing is a very important aspect of the concreting process that helps drastically reduce the amount of shrinkage during drying (Neville 1997).

2.3 Shrinkage

It is common knowledge that when concrete dries, it loses water and a volumetric change occurs. When water moves out of concrete, contraction takes place, which is called shrinkage. There are four main types of shrinkage that will be defined: plastic shrinkage, autogenous shrinkage, drying shrinkage and carbonation shrinkage. Factors

influencing shrinkage and the method of testing shrinkage are presented after the definitions are covered.

2.3.1 Plastic Shrinkage

Plastic shrinkage occurs when the concrete is still in the plastic state. This type of shrinkage is due to the evaporation of water from the surface of the concrete and is influenced by the ambient temperature, humidity, and presence of wind. If the amount of water evaporated exceeds the amount of water brought to the surface of the concrete through the bleeding process, hydrostatic stresses tend to develop thus causing lateral shrinkage and consequently cracking. Evaporation of water increases when the concrete temperature is higher than the ambient temperature, and therefore, it is advisable to protect concrete from the sun and wind, which means placing and finishing quickly and immediately starting the curing process (Neville 1997). Bloom and Bentur (1995) found that the use of silica fume accelerates setting time and increases free plastic shrinkage in an open environment, which again reinforces the fact that the concrete containing silica fume, which HPC usually has, should be cast quickly and the curing process should be carefully planned. Plastic shrinkage can easily be controlled with the prevention of evaporation of water immediately after casting by spraying the surface of the setting concrete with water, or covering it with wet burlap and plastic until the concrete is out of its plastic state.

2.3.2 Autogenous Shrinkage

After concrete sets, volume changes continue to occur. If no moisture movement to or from the cement paste is permitted, shrinkage takes place due to self-desiccation. Self-desiccation is the withdrawal of water from the capillary pores to hydrate the unhydrated cement present in the interior of the concrete mass. Shrinkage due to selfdesiccation is known as autogenous shrinkage. This type of shrinkage is usually included as part of the drying shrinkage because of its relatively small value in comparison (Neville 1997). HPC, however, is extremely prone to autogenous shrinkage due to its low watercement ratio (w/c) and small capillary pores. Persson (1998) found that autogenous shrinkage increases with decreasing w/c and the addition of silica fume. In Persson (1998) but not personally consulted, Roy and Larrard (1993) and also Sicard (1993) support the results found in Perssons research program. This type of shrinkage can be rather large in magnitude unless continuous water curing is started soon after casting of concrete. The curing practices for HPC are crucial to the minimization of shrinkage and hence reduced risk of cracking.

2.3.3 Drying Shrinkage

Probably the most important type of shrinkage is drying shrinkage, which occurs immediately after the concrete ends its plastic state. Drying shrinkage is the withdrawal of water from concrete stored in an unsaturated air. The amount of drying shrinkage

possible for a particular specimen is influenced greatly by the aggregates in the concrete, which provides restraint from shrinkage. The relative humidity of the surrounding environment also affects the magnitude of drying shrinkage (Neville 1997). The actual mechanism by which drying shrinkage takes place is complex, but generally accepted that it involves the loss of adsorbed water from the hydrate cement paste. When concrete is initially exposed to a condition where there is a difference between the relative humidity of the environment and the concrete, free water is lost (Nmai et al. 1998). The total volume of water lost to the surrounding environment does not equal the total change in volume of the concrete. The initial loss of free water has little or no effect on the volume of the concrete. Only when the adsorbed water evaporates does a change in volume occur, which is equal to the loss of a water layer one molecule thick from the surface of all gel particles. Therefore, the concrete would not be able to absorb back the full amount of water loss and the total change in volume is not recoverable, leading to the conclusion that drying shrinkage of concrete is not a reversible process. To decrease the magnitude of drying shrinkage, a higher relative humidity of the surrounding environment is needed. Drying shrinkage in HPC is more often than not greater than both carbonation and autogenous shrinkage combined (Neville 1997). This type of shrinkage is critical due to the low water-cementitious ratio (w/cm), which is usually specified and becomes more critical when shrinkage is restrained.

10

2.3.4 Carbonation Shrinkage

Carbonation shrinkage occurs in the hardened concrete state caused by the reactions between the constituents of hydrated cement paste and carbon dioxide, CO2. These reactions take place even with small amounts of CO2 in the surrounding air. Of the hydrates in cement paste, the one that reacts most with CO2 is calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2, and the product of the reaction is calcium carbonate, CaCO3. Carbonation results in an increase in mass of the concrete. When drying shrinkage and carbonation occur simultaneously an incorrect conclusion that the concrete has reached constant mass or equilibrium may be assumed, whereas it is merely carbonation and drying shrinkage canceling each other out. One positive aspect of carbonation is the fact that CaCO3 occupies a larger volume than Ca(OH)2, which it replaces, and thus results in less porous concrete (Neville 1997). In HPC, carbonation shrinkage can all but be eliminated when certain precautions are taken. HPC normally forms less Ca(OH)2 compared to normal concrete, due to reactions with pozzolanic materials, such as silica fume, or other polymeric materials that are usually incorporated in an HPC mix design. Results have indicated that the use of pozzolanic materials at a low w/cm may eliminate carbonation shrinkage altogether in HPC. Carbonation shrinkage in HPC introduces surface cracking, which affects the durability of the concrete (Persson 1998).

11

2.3.5 Factors Influencing Shrinkage

There have been many studies centered around the factors that influence shrinkage. Shah et al. (1996) states that the amount of shrinkage depends on many factors including material properties, temperature and relative humidity of the environment, the age of the concrete and size of the structure. Nmai et al. (1998) gives a similar list of factors affecting drying shrinkage, which include characteristics of the concrete mix ingredients and their proportions, design and construction practices, environmental influences and time. The influences of concrete mix ingredients and their proportions on drying shrinkage will be discussed here because it is the largest shrinkage in magnitude in HPC. Conflicting data can be found on influences of concrete mix ingredients on drying shrinkage, but unquestionably, water and coarse aggregate have a profound effect on minimizing the paste content. Drying shrinkage increases with increasing water and cement content, and therefore in order to minimize the drying shrinkage of concrete the total water and cement content must be kept as low as possible. This can be done with the use of HRWRA. The standard ACI 212 reports that the effects of HRWRA on HPC are conflicting, but states that a decrease in long term shrinkage may result depending on the degree to which the water content of the concrete is reduced. Other admixtures such as AEA have been shown to have little or no effect on drying shrinkage. Also, cement content and its type, composition and fineness have little effect on concrete shrinkage. Aggregate, on the other hand, has a two-fold effect on drying shrinkage. First, the use of high coarse aggregate content minimizes the total water and paste contents of the

12

concrete mixture, therefore minimizing the drying shrinkage. At a given w/c, the drying shrinkage is reduced as the aggregate-cement ratio is increased. Secondly, the drying shrinkage of the cement paste is reduced by the coarse aggregate due to its restraining influence. The amount of restraint provided by the coarse aggregate depends on the type of aggregate, its stiffness, the total amount of aggregate used and the maximum size. Some types of aggregate that are difficult to compress and provide more restraint to the shrinkage of the cement include granite, limestone and quartz. Aggregates to avoid if low drying shrinkage is desired include sandstone and slate. Aggregates with clay coatings should also be avoided because of the reduction in restraint and the increased water demand. Finally, the use of pozzolanic materials or other polymeric materials as admixtures increase the volume of fine pores in the cement hydration product resulting in an increase in drying shrinkage (Nmai et al. 1998). Some design and construction practices that affect drying shrinkage are the amount of reinforcement provided, and the size, shape and surface area-volume ratio of the concrete member. Steel reinforcement supplies restraint to reduce the drying shrinkage. In the same ambient environment, a small concrete specimen will shrink more than a larger concrete member due to its higher surface area-volume ratio. Thus, the drying shrinkage occurring in a concrete structure has been found to be a fraction of that obtained in the laboratory setting. Also at the job site, retempering a concrete mixture, by adding water for workability, will increase the drying shrinkage because of the increase in water content and should be avoided (Nmai et al. 1998). The magnitude of drying shrinkage is greatly affected by the relative humidity of the surrounding environment. The lower the relative humidity is, the greater the drying

13

shrinkage in concrete structures. The drying shrinkage is also time dependent. A longterm study on shrinkage showed that nearly 50% of the drying shrinkage obtained at 20 years occurred within the first 3 months of drying, thus showing that the precautions taken early on in the life of a concrete structure can greatly increase its service life (Nmai et al. 1998).

2.3.6 Free Shrinkage Test Method

Now that the various types of shrinkage have been discussed, the testing method of measuring free shrinkage is presented. To measure free shrinkage strain, ASTM C 157, Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic-Cement Mortar and Concrete and AASHTO T 160, Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic Cement Mortar, recommend a prismatic specimen 11.25 inches long and with a 1, 3, or 4 inch square cross section. The free shrinkage strain is calculated by measuring the length change, defined as an increase or decrease in the linear dimension of a test specimen, which has been caused to change by any factor other than externally applied forces and temperature changes (ASTM C 157). It is assumed that the length of the specimen is much larger than the cross sectional dimensions, and therefore shrinkage takes place only in the length direction (Grzybowski and Shah 1990). The length change measurement over time leads to the calculation of one-dimensional shrinkage strain of the material. This gives an idea of how much concrete will shrink when no restraints are present, but does not yield any information about the characteristics of restrained concrete. So ideally, the combination of the free shrinkage test and a type of restrained shrinkage test

14

is needed for adequate information on the overall shrinkage characteristics of concrete. A number of predictions of shrinkage are available, such as ACI 209 and Hou et al. (2001) who both recommend the known hyperbolic function model. ACI 209 incorporated correction factors based on member size, drying time and mix proportions, but did not account for strength. Hou et al. (2001) included a strength factor to accommodate HPC in their study.

2.4 Creep

Creep is defined as the increase in strain over time of concrete subjected to constant stress (Neville 1964). Creep is a complex phenomenon whose mechanisms are uncertain. There are varying types of creep just as there are different types of shrinkage, and a specimen undergoing creep has various categories of deformations. If the specimen is allowed to dry while loaded, drying creep and shrinkage occur from the moisture movement between the concrete specimen and the surrounding environment. If no moisture movement to or from the ambient surroundings is permitted, there is some nominal elastic strain and basic creep, which are due to an applied load. For the most part, in experiments, basic creep and drying creep are not distinguished, and an additive approach is used to account for both shrinkage and creep of a given specimen. A companion concrete specimen is used to gather shrinkage strain data, which are subtracted from the total strain collected from the creep specimen to produce the creep strain. Even though it has been found that this is not entirely accurate, it is the most convenient and practical method of creep data collection and calculation used (Neville

15

1997). Now that the introduction to creep and its terminology have been presented, a discussion of the factors influencing creep will follow.

2.4.1 Factors Influencing Creep

There are many factors that influence the amount of creep in concrete. The hydrated cement paste is actually the part of concrete that undergoes creep and the aggregate acts as a restraint, therefore the strength and amount of aggregate is important. According to Neville (1997), the porosity of the aggregate has been found to influence the creep of concrete, but since a more porous aggregate generally has a lower modulus of elasticity, the conclusion is reached that porosity is not an independent factor. Another explanation of porous aggregates affecting creep may be that the pores act to transfer moisture within the concrete, thus leading to the development of drying creep. General statements regarding different aggregate types and their influence on creep are typically not given because of the great variation of aggregates within any mineralogical and petrological type. A second and rather obvious influence on creep is stress and there is a direct proportionality between creep and applied stress. The applied stress limit expressed as a fraction of the ultimate strength usually falls between 0.4 and 0.6 for normal concrete and occasionally as high as 0.75 for high strength concrete. Creep is inversely proportional to the strength of concrete at the time of load application. This leads to the stress-strength ratio approach, which involves specifying the strength of concrete by laboratory testing and calculation of the ultimate strength and then taking a fraction of the strength for the

16

sustained load. This is a more practical method than taking into consideration factors such as type of cement, w/c ratio and age, which can lead to tedious computations. The type of cement used affects creep by influencing the strength of the concrete and should be recognized if comparing mixtures with different types of cement. Other cementitious materials also cause changes in creep, such as the presence of silica fume, which has no effect on basic creep but reduces the drying creep. Creep is generally also reduced in concretes containing fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag. Concrete made with expansive cement has a larger amount of creep than concrete made with Portland cement. There have been no definite patterns on the influences of waterreducing and set-retarding admixtures on creep. In dealing with external factors, relative humidity is one of the most important influences on creep, and generally speaking, the lower the relative humidity the higher the creep. In reality, concrete exposed to any sort of relative humidity allows for drying and therefore the occurrence of drying creep. Another external factor involves storing the concrete specimen in alternating air and water. This alternating wetting and drying increases the magnitude of creep, which shows that laboratory tests may underestimate creep of concrete under normal weather conditions. The size of the specimen influences the amount of creep; an increase in specimen size decreases creep. This is probably due to the effect of shrinkage, the volume-surface ratio, and the increase in strength of the core of a mass of concrete. Consequently a lower drying creep value in the inner portion of the concrete mass results in an overall decrease in creep. Finally, it has been found that creep under cyclic loading is higher than that under static loading equal to the mean

17

cyclic stress. Therefore, static creep results underestimate the amount of creep under cyclic loading conditions (Neville 1997).

2.4.2 Effects of Creep

Strains, deformations and stress distributions are all affected by creep. In statically indeterminate structures, creep actually relieves stress concentrations induced by shrinkage, temperature changes or support movements. In all structures, creep reduces internal stresses due to non-uniform shrinkage and therefore reduces cracking. Some undesirable effects from creep include excessive deflections of structural members and the presence of other serviceability problems, often in high rise buildings and long span bridges. In general the effects of creep, like shrinkage, can be harmful, but creep is beneficial in relieving stress concentrations. Research at the University of Illinois under Lange et al. (1997) showed that creep is significant in relaxing shrinkage stress at an early age. However, creep is very dependent on mix composition and stress levels. More often than not, creep has been incorporated into the designs of structures and is used as an advantage wherever possible. There is little advantage on creep response in structures using HPC, since HPC has low creep due to its very low w/c ratio, high cement contents, silica fume admixtures and other ingredients that produce very high early strengths and moduli of elasticity. The low creep values have little reduction influence on the tensile stresses developed from restrained drying shrinkage and thermal effects, and therefore the HPC structures have a greater tendency of cracking. This is a problem in early age HPC bridge decks.

18

2.4.3 Creep Test

The test method to measure creep is described in ASTM C 512, Standard Test Method for Creep of Concrete in Compression. The test method covers the determination of creep of molded concrete specimens subjected to a sustained longitudinal compressive load. Creep from different concrete mixtures can be compared using this testing method. The test specimens are loaded to no more than 40% of the compressive strength at the age of loading. Strain readings are taken immediately before and after loading and then on the given time frame as the experiment indicates. The load should vary by no more than 2% throughout the test or it must be adjusted. When placing specimens in the creep frame, care must be taken to avoid eccentricities in initial set up and while loading.

2.5 Rapid Chloride Permeability Test

The strength of a mixture has long been associated with all other concrete properties and used as an indicator of a good quality concrete design. In recent years, evidence has shown that the strength of a concrete mixture may not be a good measure of the durability of a mix (Myers et al. 1997). A method of measuring the durability of concrete directly was needed rather than indirectly via strength tests. Chloride permeability was deemed the most relevant property affecting the durability of concrete. Two main testing methods surfaced for the determination of concretes permeability to chloride ions, AASHTO T 277, Rapid Determination of the Chloride Permeability of

19

Concrete and AASHTO T 259, Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration. AASHTO T 277 and the equivalent ASTM C 1202, Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concretes Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration, have become increasingly popular among engineers, due to the continuing demand for faster and less expensive test methods. The next section will present the testing methods for the rapid chloride permeability test (RCPT).

2.5.1 The RCPT Methods and Information

The RCPT consists of two parts, the conditioning of the concrete specimen and the actual test, which involves monitoring the amount of electrical current passing through the specimen. The test specimen is made from the top 2 inches of a 4-inch diameter and 8-inch long concrete cylinder cut by a diamond saw. The disk is surface dried and the cylindrical surface is covered with silicone and allowed to dry. Next, the specimen is vacuumed for 3 hours and then covered with de-aerated water. The vacuum is on for the duration of the test and continues to run for another hour after the water has been added. The disk specimen is then soaked for 18 hours before it is removed, and its two faces are mounted to voltage cells with silicone and again allowed to dry. The testing procedure involves filling one voltage cell with a sodium chloride solution and the other with a sodium hydroxide solution. After connecting the voltage cells to a 60-volt direct current power supply, the apparatus is turned on and the current passing through the concrete disk is monitored for 6 hours. The amount of electrical current passed is given in Coulombs, which are Amperes-second. The more permeable the concrete the

20

higher the Coulomb value, and likewise, the lower the Coulomb value the less permeable the concrete. The RCPT is usually performed on 28-day old concrete specimens (Suprenant 1991). Even with its increasing popularity, many concerns have been voiced regarding the RCPT and many research programs were designed to look into some of these questions.

2.5.2 Concerns and Research Regarding the RCPT

This new method of testing concrete chloride permeability using RCPT has not gone without controversy. Many researchers have voiced concern in the repeatability of the test and how various factors influence the test results. Certain factors within the physical test itself have been questioned and some of them will be detailed. Mobasher and Mitchell (1998) found that for high permeability concretes the copper screens accumulate corrosion products, which deteriorate the screens. The operator of the RCPT should be aware of the screens potential corrosion and be cautious of its consequences. Mobasher and Mitchell (1998) suggested using a stainless steel screen as a more durable alternative. Dubois and Peabody (1998) thought that the 6 hour duration for a RCPT was rather long, and if the time could be cut down, both time and money would be saved. After 131 tests, Dubois and Peabody (1998) concluded that the 360 minutes could actually be reduced to 30 minutes and a multiplier of 14 could be used to represent the value obtained in the full 360 minute test, but recommend that additional concretes be tested before altering the standard procedures. Myers et al. (1997) and Mobasher and Mitchell (1998) both did extensive research on the

21

effects of various materials in the concrete mixture on the chloride permeability. Myers et al. (1997) found that the addition of AEA had no effect on the chloride permeability of the test specimens. Mobasher and Mitchell (1998), on the other hand, found that as the amount of AEA increases so does the permeability. Both studies indicated that as the w/c ratios increase so did the permeability. Myers et al. (1997) studied the effect of fly ash in concrete mixes and discovered that the use of fly ash decreases the permeability. Concerns regarding the repeatability of the RCPT have been stated by many researchers. Hooton (1998) shows large variability in the chloride permeability tests of cylinders taken from the same batch. The coefficient of variation for three sets of data with six replicates was 41.1%. Hooton (1998) concludes that concrete is much more variable with respect to chloride permeability than with strength. Mobasher and Mitchell (1998) also studied the precision from various laboratories. For two RCPTs on the same material by the same operator, the results should not differ by more than 35% with a coefficient of variation of 12.3%. For multi-laboratory work, the coefficient of variation was found to be 18% for a single test, and two tests run from different laboratories on the same material should not differ by more than 51%. Mobasher and Mitchell (1998) attribute the high precision values on variability of the samples and deviations from the test schedule and procedure by the participating laboratories. In addition, Dubois and Peabody (1998) found, after 300 tests, that there is little consistency from one sample to the next and the average of at least two samples should always be used. Even with all the concerns, the chloride permeability test seems to be the most cost effective and time efficient method of measuring chloride permeability in concrete. The RCPT has shown difficulty in repeatability but with proper equipment usage and a

22

cautious and careful technician there should be no problem with the accuracy of the physical test.

2.6 The Ring Test Method

In shrinkage research, the free shrinkage test alone does not yield sufficient information on cracking tendencies because almost all concrete structures undergo some type of restraint. Virtually all steel and precast concrete girder bridges incorporate castin-place concrete elements in their design, including curbs, sidewalks, barriers and most importantly, bridge decks. The precast bridge elements are restrained by girders and this produces tension when the concrete shrinks and therefore leads to cracking. The cracking of bridge decks poses a threat to the long-term life of the bridge. Therefore, it is necessary to have the ability to quantify cracking for comparative purposes of different mix designs to develop more durable structures. The development of a test method, which enables the evaluation of stresses under restrained conditions, is needed. There is no standard test to assess the cracking of concrete due to restrained shrinkage, but there are some testing methods used to measure shrinkage cracking behavior (Li et al. 1999). The ring test is the most effective evaluation of cracking, due to restrained shrinkage, among the available tests. The ring test method is discussed in this section along with mention of other types of test methods for restrained shrinkage, and later in this section, summaries of various studies by the ring test method are discussed.

23

2.6.1 Ring Test Set Up and Theory on Cracking

While the free shrinkage potential of concrete is significant, it is not the only factor in determining the vulnerability of concrete to cracking. Concrete that is unrestrained can develop freely a certain amount of shrinkage, but when all or part of the shrinkage is restrained, tensile stresses develop. When the induced tensile stresses exceed the tensile strength of the concrete the onset of cracking can be expected. The cracks provide easy access for oxygen, moisture, chlorides and other aggressive chemicals into the concrete matrix and can decrease the durability and life span of the structure. Therefore, both the crack width and orientation of the crack are important factors (Nmai et al. 1998), and in general, the cracking characteristics of concrete are important in concrete research. Three different specimen geometries have been used in studies to measure the effect of restraint in concrete: rings, which are extensively discussed in this paper, bars and plates. The bar specimens provide uni-axial stress development, but the end conditions often complicate testing (Weiss et al. 1998). Flared ends are often used in the development of closed loop testing machines as in studies by Parilee et al. (1988), Kovler (1994) and Bloom and Bentur (1995). These testing frames are used to determine the stress maintained in a specimen under a prescribed displacement. Significant insights into the relationship between drying shrinkage and creep have been obtained (Weiss and Shah 1997). In addition to bar specimens, plate specimens have been tested to evaluate both biaxial restraint and plastic shrinkage cracking. When restraint to shrinkage is provided in two directions, a biaxial state of stress is produced characterized by specimen

24

geometry in addition to material properties (Grzybowski and Shah 1990). This makes it more difficult to test the effects of varying materials in concrete. On the other hand, both the bar and plate test specimens simulate planar elements that easily correlate to structural elements (Weiss and Shah 1990). Similar to the plate test, Weiss et al. (1998) used a slab type specimen to simulate the restraint experienced in highway pavements and bridge decks. The specimen was thin and long to avoid moisture gradients and ensure the ability to develop sufficient tensile stress to induce cracking. The bar and plate specimens have advantages but the big drawback is the complication in the end restraints. Due to laboratory difficulties in providing sufficient end restraint and avoiding eccentricities, ring type specimens are used. In the ring test, concrete is cast around a solid ring, usually steel. The dimensions most commonly used in this set up are shown in Figure 2.1. The diameter of the steel ring affects the concrete shrinkage restraint. Therefore, a diameter of 305 mm is used to approximate the worst case shrinkage restraint on a bridge deck. Stress analysis of the ring test set up with varying dimensions shows that the stress distribution is non-linear. But using the dimensions in Figure 2.1 and assuming the concrete ring is subjected to an internal pressure from the restraint of the steel ring, the difference between the tensile hoop stresses on the outer and inner surfaces is only 10 percent, and the maximum radial stress is 20 percent of the maximum hoop stress. Given the steel ring diameter of 305 mm, it can be assumed that the concrete is subjected to a state of uniaxial stress (Grzybowski and Shah 1990; Shah et al. 1992; Weiss and Shah 1997, and Wiegrink et al. 1996).

25

A steel ring of 305 mm in diameter and 140 mm in height is used as the inside formwork of the concrete ring and either PVC pipe or sonnet tubing is used for the outside formwork having a diameter of 375 mm. The thickness of the concrete ring around the steel is therefore 35 mm, which is one-fourth its height of 140 mm and leads to the assumption that uniform drying takes place along the height (Shah et al. 1992). The steel ring and PVC pipe are centered on a wooden base to finish the formwork. During casting, the concrete is rodded or vibrated to ensure proper compaction. The concrete ring is allowed to set for 24 hours under wet burlap. The outer form work, either PVC pipe or sonnet tube, is peeled off and the top of the ring immediately sealed with a silicon rubber sealant to prevent moisture loss from the top of the ring and ensure drying from the outer circumferential surface. The specimen is then stored in a controlled environment where the temperature and humidity often varies from experiment to experiment. Now that the various test methods have been discussed, ways to decrease the shrinkage cracking of concrete will be presented. The simplest of all solutions is to reduce shrinkage, which can be accomplished many different ways. The reduction in the amount of water reduces the presence of water available for evaporation and therefore reduces shrinkage. Increasing the curing time allows for the concrete to develop stiffness and toughness, therefore cutting down on the initial shrinkage. Reinforcing fibers are used to decrease crack widths, though the fibers do not prevent cracking (Weiss and Shah 1997). Grzybowski and Shah (1990) found that the addition of fibers in concrete significantly reduces the crack widths resulting from restrained drying shrinkage. Shrinkage compensating concretes are used when concrete is restrained. Shrinkage

26

compensating concretes are produced with expansive cements, which expand the concrete during curing and place any reinforcing steel in precompression, thus counteracting the development of tensile stresses and while the total shrinkage maybe about the same, the cracking due to restraint can be delayed. Precautions must be taken and careful attention must be paid to avoid warping and bending of concrete slabs due to uneven restraints. Non-expansive shrinkage reducing admixtures are also used to reduce the shrinkage and consequently cracking of concrete (Weiss and Shah 1997). Studies by Nmai et al. (1998), Shah et al. (1996) and Weiss et al. (1998) have shown that SRAs effectively reduce shrinkage and delay cracking in concrete. These are just some of the methods used to reduce shrinkage and therefore cracking in concrete specimens. The tendency for concrete to crack is due to restrained shrinkage, which is related to free shrinkage, creep and tensile strength. In the case of cracking, creep acts as a mechanism of stress relief and reduces the tensile stress. HPC often has a higher tensile strength, which is an advantage when combined with creep. But, tensile creep does not significantly reduce tensile stress development, and the potential for cracking is still present. The study of early age tensile creep is critical for full understanding of shrinkage cracking (Weiss et al. 1998). Shah et al. (1996) emphasized this by stating that creep effects in the stress analysis at early ages should not be ignored. In HPC and high strength concretes, the combined effect of higher free shrinkage, lower specific creep and higher modulus of elasticity leads to early cracking (Wiegrink et al. 1996).

27

Steel Ring Concrete Specimen

Silicone Rubber Sealant

140 mm (6 in)

254 mm (11.75 in) 305 mm (12.25 in) 375 mm (16 in)

Steel Ring

Concrete Specimen

Wooden Base

Figure 2.1

Schematic of Ring Set Up

28

2.6.2 Test Methods and Results Using Ring Set Up

Using the ring test enables the study of different concrete mixtures and the effects of various admixtures and additions of reinforcing fibers in a mix. Study programs targeting the influences of various admixtures and the use of reinforcing fibers will be presented in this section. The experimental set up for each study is presented due to the importance of the experimental conditions to make the results more meaningful. This section describes various experimental programs similar to the one devised for the present study.

2.6.2.1 Study by Li et al. (1999)

Li et al. (1999) used the ring test to study the effects of silica fume, fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag and calcium nitrite inhibitor on restrained shrinkage cracking. The ring test set-up was constructed using the same dimensions as in Figure 2.1, and Li et al. (1999) used the ring specimen for both restrained and free shrinkage. The restrained shrinkage test used a steel ring as the inner mold that remained throughout the experiment and for the free shrinkage, both inner and outer molds were stripped away. Eight mixes were cast using 10 mm limestone aggregate and natural river sand. Six mixes included fly ash, to decrease bleeding and segregation, and therefore improve workability and gain higher compactness. Three mixes used silica fume to obtain high strength, low permeability and gains in long-term durability of the concrete. One mix

29

replaced 50% of the cement with ground granulated blast furnace slag to increase workability, decrease bleeding and segregation, and increase the durability of the concrete. Retarder and water-reducer were used for all mixes to delay set time, decrease slump loss and the amount of water needed. Four mixes contained calcium nitrite inhibitor for improved anticorrosive properties of the concrete. The concrete was allowed to set for 24 hours before the outer mold was stripped off of the restrained shrinkage ring, after which the top surface of the ring was sealed with epoxy resin. The resin was used to avoid moisture loss from the top of the ring and allow drying only from the outer circumferential surface. Both the inner and outer molds were removed for the free shrinkage and the top and inner surface of the concrete was sealed with epoxy resin to prevent drying. For the first four days, the specimens were moist cured at 100% relative humidity and 20oC. After four days, the specimens were exposed to a drying environment of 40% relative humidity and 20oC. The specimens were monitored for strain in the free shrinkage test and crack development for the restrained shrinkage test. Free shrinkage measurements were taken using a dial-gage extensometer with a gage length of 200 mm. Five pairs of brass studs fixed on the top of the circumferential surface were used to take the free shrinkage readings and averaged to find the free shrinkage strain. Measurements were gathered once every 24 hours for 10 weeks. For the restrained shrinkage test, the appearance of any cracks was noted and the crack width measured with a microscope with a magnification x30. Crack width at three positions, one-quarter, one-half and three-quarter points of the vertical distance from the top surface

30

of the ring were measured every 24 hours for 10 weeks. The average of the three values was used as the crack width. The study by Li et al. (1999) found that the crack width increases with increasing silica fume, fly ash and calcium nitrite inhibitor. The use of ground granulated blast furnace slag did not drastically change the shrinkage strain, but did change the restrained shrinkage cracking behavior; the appearance of the initial crack was delayed and its rate of growth was decreased.

2.6.2.2 Study by Shah et al. (1992)

Shah et al. (1992) studied the effects of three different types of shrinkage reducing admixtures on the free shrinkage and restrained shrinkage of concrete mixes, while maintaining the same amount of water. Shah et al. (1992) also used the ring test set up shown in Figure 2.1. In order to monitor the free shrinkage of the concrete mixes, shrinkage prisms, 285 mm long and 100 mm square, were used in compliance with ASTM C 157. The materials used included 9 mm maximum aggregate size pea gravel, dried natural river sand with a maximum grain size of 3 mm and Type I Portland cement. Three types of shrinkage-reducing admixtures were used: the first, SRA1 is a commercial material containing an alkoxylated alcohol; the second, SRA2 is a similar alkoxylated alcohol-based oligomer, and the third, SRA3 is an experimental alcohol-based material. The mix proportions by weight for the mix design were 1:2:2:0.5 (cement: sand: coarse aggregate: water). Shrinkage reducing admixture of 1, 2, and 4 percent was incorporated into the mixtures along with a control mix having no shrinkage-reducing admixture.

31

When casting the specimens, the rings were filled half way and vibrated for a minute and then filled to the top and vibrated for another minute to assure proper compaction. The free shrinkage prisms and restrained shrinkage rings were cured for 4 hours at 20oC and 100% relative humidity. The short curing period was chosen in order to start shrinkage measurements as early as possible. After demolding, the specimens were stored in an environment of 20oC and 40% relative humidity and free shrinkage readings were taken every 24 hours for 42 days with a dial-gage extensometer. The weight of each specimen was also recorded when the free shrinkage readings were taken. Restrained shrinkage readings were taken by a mounted movable microscope. The crack widths reported were an average of three readings: one at the center of the ring and the other two at the center of the top and bottom halves of the ring. Surface examinations for new cracks and measurements of existing cracks were performed every 24 hours for the first 7 days and every 48 hours up to 42 days. For each mix, 75 x 150 mm cylinders were cast and tested for compressive strength at 1, 7, and 28 days. The cylinders were subjected to the same drying environment as the ring specimens and free shrinkage prisms. Test results of the Shah et al. (1992) study showed that the addition of SRAs reduces the compressive strength of the concrete. The amount of reduction in strength depended on the amount and type of SRA used. It was also found that free shrinkage is significantly reduced with the use of SRA; the larger the percentage of SRA used, the greater the reduction in free shrinkage. Depending on the type and amount of shrinkage reducing admixture used, a considerable reduction in crack width occurred when compared with the control concrete mix.

32

2.6.2.3 Study by Wiegrink et al. (1996)

Wiegrink et al. (1996) studied the restrained shrinkage cracking of several different strengths of concrete mixes. The mix proportions of 1:2:2 (cement: sand: coarse aggregate) were used for all specimens. The materials used in all batches included Type I Portland cement, pea gravel with a maximum aggregate size of 9 mm and dried natural river sand with a maximum grain size of 3 mm. It was important to eliminate the influence of aggregate, so the aggregate paste ratio was kept constant at 2:1. Five mixes, with various strengths, were obtained by the use of water-reducing admixtures and partial replacement of cement with silica fume. During mixing, the fresh concrete properties measured were slump, unit weight and air content as prescribed in ASTM Standards. After batching took place, the specimens were covered with a plastic sheet until demolded. Again, Wiegrink et al. (1996) used the same dimensions of the ring set up as shown in Figure 2.1. The inner mold was made of a steel ring and the outer mold of PVC pipe. The top of each ring was sealed with silicon rubber to avoid drying from the top surface and promote drying on the outer circumferential surface. Crack width growth in the ring test was monitored by averaging of the crack width measurements with a microscope at the quarter points along the height of the specimen. For the first 7 days, the specimens were checked for new cracks and measurements of existing cracks were taken every 24 hours, then checked every 48 hours after the first week up until 90 days. Along with the ring specimens, free shrinkage prisms 400 mm length and 100 mm square were also cast to monitor one-dimensional shrinkage of the concrete mixes. A dial-gage

33

extensometer, gage length 250 mm, was used to measure the change in length of brass studs embedded in the prism specimens. Readings were taken every 24 hours for the first 4 weeks and then 3 times a week up to 90 days. Creep tests were performed on specimens with identical dimensions as the free shrinkage prisms in accordance with ASTM C 512. Measurements of the length change due to creep were taken on the same schedule as the free shrinkage readings. Cylinder specimens 75 x 150 mm were used for compressive strength tests, and split cylinder tensile strength tests were done with 100 x 100 mm specimens. Both compression and tension tests were performed on concrete at 3, 7, and 28 days of age. The ring specimens and two free shrinkage prisms were allowed to cure for 6 hours, before demolding, then subjected to an environment of 20oC and 50 % relative humidity. Cylinder specimens for compressive and split tensile tests were demolded after 24 hours and cured for an additional 7 days in water before being stored in a drying environment at 20oC and 50% relative humidity. The creep specimens were stored unloaded in a room at 20oC and 50% relative humidity before being loaded at 40% of the maximum compressive strength as obtained from the cylinder compression tests. From this research program, Wiegrink et al. (1996) found that concrete made with higher water content and demolded after 24 hours lost more water, but the free shrinkage remained virtually the same. This phenomenon demonstrates that free shrinkage is dependent on more than just weight loss. A reduction in specific creep was found with increasing silica fume and decreasing water content. The rate of creep deformation for concrete containing silica fume stabilized before normal concrete. Since high strength concrete tends to crack earlier than normal concrete, the value of specific creep at early

34

ages may be a factor influencing the early cracking of high strength concrete. Even though the high strength concrete had a higher tensile strength than normal strength concrete, the shrinkage cracking performance of the high strength concrete was rather poor. Wiegrink et al. (1996) believes this is due to higher free shrinkage when demolded after 6 hours, lower specific creep, higher modulus of elasticity and lower aggregate interlock along crack faces for high strength concrete.

2.6.2.4 Study by Grzybowski and Shah (1990)

Grzybowski and Shah (1990) studied the effects of two types of reinforcing fiber, polypropylene and steel, on the shrinkage and cracking properties of concrete. Again, Grzybowski and Shah (1990) used the same ring test set up as in Figure 2.1. Both restrained and free shrinkage rings were made similar to those from the study by Li et al. (1999). The inner ring was made from mechanical tubing and the outer ring was a cardboard tube. Both inner and outer tubing were removed for the free shrinkage ring, and the top and inner surfaces were also sealed to prevent moisture loss. Two test series were included in this study; the cracking of early age concrete and the cracking between one and six weeks were both investigated. The early age cracking involved curing the ring specimens for only 2.5 hours at 20oC and 100% relative humidity. The rings were demolded, sealed and exposed to a drying environment at 20oC and 40% relative humidity. Three types of specimens were used, plain with no fibers, 0.25% steel fibers and 0.1% polypropylene fibers. In the one to six weeks cracking study, the specimens were cured for 4 days at 20oC and 100% relative humidity and then exposed to 20oC and

35

40% relative humidity, and the various fiber contents used for the specimens were 0.25, 0.50, 1.00 and 1.50 percent for the steel fibers and 0.1, 0.25, 0.50, and 1.0 percent for the polypropylene fibers. Plain specimens were also tested as controls. Free shrinkage prisms measuring 225 x 75 x 25 mm accompanied each of the ring specimens, along with free shrinkage ring specimens, without the inner steel tube to test the influence of the geometry of the specimen. The mix proportions by weight were 1:2:2:0.5 (cement: sand: coarse aggregate: water). The maximum size aggregate was 9 mm. The steel fibers were 25 mm long and had a diameter of 0.4 mm, while the polypropylene fibers measured 19 mm long. Identical mix proportions were used for all mixtures except for the amount and type of fiber reinforcing. For mixing, half the water and aggregates were mixed for a minute, and then the cement was added and mixed for an additional minute. Finally, the remaining water, super plasticizer and fibers were added and mixed for 5 minutes. The ring specimens were monitored for cracks, and the crack widths measured at the quarter points by a movable mounted microscope with a magnification x100. The average of the quarter point measurements was used as the crack width. Free shrinkage of the prisms was measured using a dial gage extensometer, while the free shrinkage of the ring used an SR-4 resistance strain gage. Grzybowski and Shah (1990) found that both specimens yielded similar results indicating that the shrinkage is independent of the specimen geometry. The addition of fibers did not substantially alter the free shrinkage, but 0.25 percent reinforcing fibers considerably reduced the crack widths resulting from restrained drying shrinkage. The steel fibers were more effective than the polypropylene fibers in this study.

36

2.7 NCHRP Report by Krauss and Rogalla (1996)

Many concrete bridge decks develop cracks soon after construction. This is a prevalent problem in the United States, which leads to a potentially shortened service life with increased maintenance costs, acceleration in corrosion of reinforcing steel, concrete deterioration and a damaged appearance of bridge decks. Sponsored by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), this study by Krauss and Rogalla (1996) determined the major factors that contribute to early deck cracking and identified construction methods, concrete materials and structural design procedures that reduce or eliminate cracking in bridge decks. Concrete bridge decks develop cracks when tensile stresses in the deck exceed the tensile strength of the concrete. Temperature changes in the concrete, concrete shrinkage and bending from self-weight and traffic loads cause these tensile stresses. Shrinkage and temperature stresses develop in all bridges because of the restraint in the girders and the natural thermal and shrinkage movement in the deck. The thermal and shrinkage stresses are caused by geographic location, material properties and bridge geometry. Some of the material property factors that affect deck cracking include cement content, cement composition, early age elastic modulus, creep, aggregate type, concrete temperature during placement, heat generated during hydration and drying shrinkage. The amount of restraint provided to the deck by the girders restricts the natural shrinkage and thermal movement in a bridge deck, causing stresses and the risk of cracking. The

37

construction practice, curing and weather conditions can also affect the cracking tendencies of bridge decks. The research in this study included the ring test, which enables the study of effects of mix variations on the time required for cracking to develop in the ring specimen. Variations in the concrete mixture that would affect cracking include aggregate type and gradation, cement type and amount, water content, mineral admixtures, silica fume admixtures and chemical admixtures. This test does not predict when cracking will occur in an actual concrete structure, because of the varying conditions of restraint, hydration effects and environment, but it does determine the relative likelihood of early cracking. This aids in the selection of concrete mixes that are less likely to crack. The NRHCP report studied the cracking tendency of 39 concrete mixtures using the restrained shrinkage test consisting of a 75 mm (3 in.) wide, 150 mm (6 in.) tall concrete ring cast around a 19 mm (0.75 in.) thick section of steel tubing with an exterior diameter of 300 mm (12 in.). The steel ring provides 70% restraint assuming a linear free-strain distribution for shrinkage through the concrete. The steel rings were fitted with electrical strain gages sampled every 30 minutes to detect losses in compressive strain that indicate cracking. The rings were also visually examined for cracks. Compressive strength cylinders and free shrinkage prisms were cast along with the rings for testing. The compressive strength was tested at 7 and 28 days. The free shrinkage prisms remained in a 22oC and 50% relative humidity environment throughout the duration of the study and were tested periodically. Ring strains were monitored and detailed visual inspections were performed when large strain changes occurred. Once a

38

crack formed, the width was monitored for a week and then the concrete was removed and the steel ring reused. The effects of many factors were studied, including w/c ratio, cement content, aggregate size and type, super plasticizer, silica fume, set accelerators and retarders, air entrainment, cyclic temperature, evaporation rate, curing and shrinkage-compensating concretes. The study found that the cracking tendency increased as the cement content increased and the w/c ratio decreased. Conclusions could not be drawn with concretes containing accelerators and retarders. AEA did not significantly affect cracking. Concretes with silica fume cracked earlier than the companion mixes without silica fume. Aggregates had the most dramatic effect on cracking. Aggregates used in this study were No. 8 lightweight expanded shale, No. 56 crushed limestone, No. 8 trap rock and No. 7 graded Eau Claire river gravel. The control concrete used a 19 mm maximum aggregate, classified as a size No. 67. The rings using No. 56 crushed limestone did not develop any distinct cracks, but showed many barely visible surface cracks that penetrated only about 25 mm (1 in.) into the concrete ring and were accompanied by a slow gradual loss of compressive strain. The limestone rings developed large external cracks with no loss in ring strain. When the crack formed, the energy was dissipated in cracking and absorbed through aggregate interlock across the crack and by friction between the steel ring and the concrete. Rings made with trap rock aggregate cracked much later than the control concrete. It should be noted that the trap rock was angular and the Eau Claire control aggregate was well rounded. Different curing times were investigated and the ring specimens that were not cured cracked quicker than the control specimens. Extending the curing period delayed cracking and insulating the concrete specimens showed

39

inconclusive results. When looking into the evaporation rate and its influence on cracking, it was found that specimens placed in the high-evaporation-rate chamber cracked much earlier than control specimens placed in a low-evaporationrate chamber. The last test involved the time of casting. Morning and evening casting was investigated and results showed that the specimens cast in simulated morning conditions cracked sooner than the rings cast in simulated evening conditions. So even though there is no ASTM Standard for the ring test method, many researchers are using it successfully to investigate the cracking tendencies of various concrete mixtures. The present study will mirror the experiments summarized in this section. The entire experimental plan is discussed in detail in the following chapter.

2.8 Research Significance

The research program presented in this thesis addresses the issues often encountered in West Virginia. The potential development of a durable HPC mixture with low cracking tendencies, made with all local materials, was the goal of this study, since cracking in bridge decks is a common problem in West Virginia. The climate of West Virginia, with its hot and humid summers and freezing temperatures in the winter, is a concern for the durability of concrete mixtures. Cracks form and corrosive chemicals seep into the concrete corroding the reinforcing bars, causing major damage and necessitating repairs to the bridge decks. To avoid this situation, this study investigates various concrete mixtures, made with local aggregates and varying admixtures, for strength, free shrinkage, creep, permeability and restrained shrinkage cracking to find an

40

optimum mixture. This optimum mixture will be recommended to the WVDOT-DOH for application in bridge decks with an expectation of its use and ultimately improved performance of local bridge decks in the state of West Virginia.

41

Chapter 3

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

3.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the materials, mixture proportions, mixing procedure, preparation of test specimens and the testing methods for all concrete samples involved in this research program.

3.2 Materials

The concrete mixtures used in this research contain materials from a variety of suppliers. The material suppliers remained the same throughout the study to avoid inconsistencies. Each supplier that provided materials for this research program also supplies similar materials to the West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways (WVDOT-DOH).

3.2.1 Portland Cement

Arrow Concrete Company, a local ready mixed concrete plant serving the Morgantown area, supplied the Type I Portland cement conforming to American

42

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) M 85, Portland Cement. The specific gravity of the Portland cement is 3.15. The chemical composition of the Type I cement can be found in Table 3.1 along with a picture in Figure 3.1.

Table 3.1

Material Composition of Type I Portland Cement MASS PERCENTAGE (%) 49.0 25.0 12.0 8.0 2.9 0.8 2.3 100.0

COMPOUND Tricalcium Silicate Dicalcium Silicate Tricalcium Aluminate Tetracalcium Aluminoferrite Calcium Sulfate Calcium Oxide Magnesium Oxide Total Mass Percentage:

43

1 inch

Figure 3.1

Portland Cement

3.2.2 Coarse Aggregate

The coarse aggregate used in this study was graded river gravel with a nominal aggregate size of inch (12.5 mm) conforming to ASTM C 33, Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates and AASHTO M 80, Coarse Aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete. Hoy Redi-Mix Company, another local concrete supplier, provided the gravel. Graded limestone or river gravel with a inch nominal maximum aggregate size, often used in concrete mixtures, would have been too large for the 2-inch thick ring specimen to allow proper distribution of particles and compaction of concrete, and therefore, inch graded river gravel seemed to be the optimum solution for this situation. All gravel was spread out and surface dried to obtain saturated surface dry

44

(SSD) aggregate condition. The specific gravity of the gravel was taken as 2.6 from data obtained by Stocker Sand and Gravel Company, who supplies this material to Hoy RediMix Company. The sieve analysis data and a picture of the river gravel can be found in Table 3.2 and Figure 3.2 respectively.

Table 3.2

Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate PERCENTAGE PASSING River Gravel 100 94 11 1 0

PERCENTAGE PASSING SIEVE 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 Low 100 85 10 0 0 High 100 100 30 10 5

1 inch

Figure 3.2

River Gravel

45

3.2.3 Fine Aggregate

In this study, graded river sand with a nominal aggregate size of 3/8 inch (9 mm) was used as the fine aggregate, following ASTM C 33 and ASSHTO M 80. Arrow Concrete Company supplied all of the sand used during this research. The preparation of the sand included drying in an oven at 50oC and 25% relative humidity to achieve SSD aggregates since the sand was wet on arrival. This drying procedure was chosen to prevent any undesirable moisture from infiltrating the concrete mixes. The specific gravity of the sand was taken as 2.71. The sieve analysis data and a picture of the sand can be found in Table 3.3 and Figure 3.3 respectively.

Table 3.3

Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate PERCENTAGE PASSING River Sand 100 97 84 72 57 18 4 2

PERCENTAGE PASSING SIEVE 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 Low 100 95 80 45 25 10 2 0 High 100 100 100 85 60 30 10 3

46

1 inch

Figure 3.3

River Sand

3.2.4 Fly Ash

The Class F fly ash used was also supplied by Arrow Concrete Company, and conforms to ASTM C 618, Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Portland Cement Concrete and AASHTO M 295, Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Portland Cement Concrete. The specific gravity of fly ash is 2.4 and a picture is provided in Figure 3.4 to highlight the particle size and shape.

47

1 inch

Figure 3.4

Fly Ash

3.2.5 Silica Fume

Master Builders Company donated the silica fume, commercial name Rheomac SF 1000, for the concrete mixtures. The material conforms to ASTM C 1240, Standard Specification for Use of Silica Fume as a Mineral Admixture in Hydraulic Cement Concrete, Mortar and Grout and AASHTO M 307, Microsilica for Use in Concrete and Mortar. Silica fume is incorporated into the concrete mixtures to replace cement and produce a high strength, low permeable concrete with enhanced durability. The use of silica fume affects the fresh concrete properties by reducing bleeding. The specific gravity of the silica fume is 2.20. A picture of the silica fume is given in Figure 3.5.

48

1 inch

Figure 3.5

Silica Fume

3.2.6 Chemical Admixtures

Since this research program targets various high performance concretes, many chemical admixtures were needed to obtain the necessary properties such as high slump, air entrainment, low shrinkage, low permeability, cracking resistance and workability during casting. Some chemical admixtures used were tested for their influence on the shrinkage and cracking behavior of concrete samples while other admixtures are commonly used in high performance concrete mixes and their contribution to the HPC mixes are not specifically tested in this research program. The source for each type of chemical admixture and other relevant chemical information are presented in the next section.

49

3.2.6.1 High Range Water-Reducing Admixture

The high range water-reducing admixture (HRWRA) is a brown liquid used in the proposed concrete mixtures to reduce the amount of water needed and improve slump. Some of the effects of using HRWRA are a decrease in both bleeding and segregation of fresh concrete. When a concrete mixture contains HRWRA, it may loose workability quicker than normal concrete and should be cast rapidly. Effects on hardened concrete include lower permeability and higher compressive and tensile strength due to the decrease in the w/c ratio (ACI 1997). A picture of the HRWRA is shown in Figure 3.6. Master Builders Technologies supplied the HRWRA, brand name Rheobuild 1000 which is a naphthalene-based superplasticizer conforming to ASTM C 494, Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete, Type F and AASHTO M 194, Chemical Admixtures for Concrete. The specific gravity of the HRWRA is 1.205.

Figure 3.6

High Range Water-Reducing Admixture and Container 50

3.2.6.2 Air Entraining Admixture

Air entraining admixtures (AEA) are often used in concrete mixtures to incorporate additional air into the concrete during mixing. The entrained air results in an increase in workability, decrease in bleeding and segregation and a greater resistance to cycles of freezing and thawing. Often, concrete with an AEA experiences a reduction in strength due to the increase in the amount of air, so a balance between too much air and not enough air must be met (ACI 1997). Master Builders Technologies furnished the air entraining admixture, MB AE 90, which conforms to ASTM C 260, Standard Specification for Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete and AASHTO M 154, AirEntraining Admixtures for Concrete. A picture of MB AE 90 is shown in Figure 3.7.

Figure 3.7

Air Entraining Admixture and Container

51

3.2.6.3 Shrinkage-Reducing Admixture

Master Builders Technologies supplied the shrinkage-reducing admixture (SRA), brand name Tetraguard AS20. SRAs are low-viscosity, water-soluble liquids that reduce capillary tension that develops within the concrete pores during drying. As a consequence, the chance of shrinkage due to drying within capillary pores is significantly reduced. Cracking occurs due to restrained shrinkage when the internal tensile stresses exceed the maximum tensile strength of the concrete, thus, the use of SRA reduces shrinkage, therefore reducing the tensile stresses and subsequently decreasing the cracking tendency of the concrete. When a SRA is used in a concrete mix design, the water content of the mix design must be decreased by that amount (Nmai et al. 1998). The specific gravity of Tetraguard AS20 is 0.985 and a picture of this clear liquid can be found in Figure 3.8.

Liquid Line

Figure 3.8

Shrinkage-Reducing Admixture and Container 52

3.2.6.4 Latex

The latex used in this experimental program was provided by Dow Chemical Company and has a brand name of Dow Modifier A (Mod A). Mod A is a nonhazardous, film forming, styrene-butadiene polymeric emulsion in water (Dow Chemical 1994). Latex is used to improve concrete toughness, ductility, shear bond, flexural and tensile strength. The reduction of porosity and permeability is due to the coalesced polymer particles, which fill the small pores of the concrete and thus increases durability. HPC is found to be more brittle than normal concrete and the addition of latex helps to reduce this brittleness. The specific gravity of latex is 1.04. A picture of this white fluorescent liquid can be found in Figure 3.9.

Figure 3.9

Latex Admixture and Container 53

3.2.6.5 Defoamer

Dow Chemical Company supplied the defoamer, commercial name Dow Corning Antifoam 2210, which has a milky white appearance and is a silicone-glycol emulsion. The defoamer is often used to control excess air incorporated into concrete mixtures containing latex. The defoamer has a specific gravity of 1.0 and is pictured in Figure 3.10.

Figure 3.10

Defoamer and Bottle

3.2.7 Water

The water used for the concrete mixtures came from the Morgantown Utility Board and was assumed to have a specific gravity of 1.0.

54

3.3 Mixture Proportions

A total of five concrete mixes were studied in this experimental program. One mixture was based on the guidelines of the Class K normal concrete mixture from the WVDOT-DOH, which contained HRWRA and AEA as chemical admixtures. The second mixture was based on the WVDOT-DOH Class H concrete mix, a high performance concrete mixture containing both fly ash and silica fume as cement replacements and a HRWRA and AEA as chemical admixtures. The third and fourth mixtures were modifications of the high performance concrete mixture. The third mixture contained a SRA. The fourth mixture used a latex admixture, while omitting the fly ash and AEA. The fly ash was omitted because it lowers the compressive strength of concrete in the presence of latex. The addition of latex in a concrete mixture results in a sufficient amount of entrained air, and therefore AEA is not necessary. The final mixture was a variation of the latex mixture, omitting the silica fume, HRWRA and AEA and adding a defoamer to form an overlay concrete mixture, similar to the one used by the WVDOT-DOH. All mixtures had a constant aggregate-paste volume ratio due to its strong influence on shrinkage. This allowed for the study of the influences of varying admixtures on the shrinkage and cracking behavior. All mixtures except the overlay latex mix had a constant coarse aggregate-fine aggregate ratio. The mixtures considered in this study, including ingredients and mixture designations are given in Table 3.4. The proportions for each mixture are given in Table 3.5.

55

Table 3.4 MIXTURE DESIGNATION NC HPC

Mixture Designations REMARKS

INGREDIENTS

HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC

cement, aggregates, HRWRA, Similar to WVDOT-DOH Type K AEA, water concrete or normal concrete cement, aggregates, silica Similar to WVDOT-DOH Type H fume, fly ash, HRWRA, AEA, concrete or high performance water concrete cement, aggregates, silica fume, fly ash, HRWRA, AEA, HPC with SRA to limit shrinkage SRA, water cement, aggregates, silica HPC with latex to reduce the fume, HRWRA, latex, water shrinkage and permeability cement, aggregates, latex, Similar to WVDOT-DOH latex defoamer, water modified concrete (LMC)

Table 3.5 MATERIAL Cement (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Silica Fume (lb) Water (lb) Water-Cementitious Material Ratio Coarse Aggregate (lb) Fine Aggregate (lb) HRWRA (oz) AEA (oz) SRA (oz) Latex (gal) Defoamer (oz)
1. 2. 3. 4.

Mixture Proportions in US Customary Units NC 568 HPC 470 124 30 284 0.50 1750 1206 34 22 250 0.40 1750 1206 98 22 HPC-SRA 470 124 30 250 0.40 1750 1206 91 30 195 40 59 31 35 165 0.35 1750 1206 68 134 0.35 1206 1750 HPC-L 658 OLMC 700

All values are based on one cubic yard of concrete. Aggregate-paste volume ratio for all mixtures is 2.444. Coarse aggregate-fine aggregate ratio for all mixtures is 1.45 except OLMC where fine aggregatecoarse aggregate ratio is 1.45. Water in the latex was included in the calculation of water-cementitious material ratio for HPC-L and OLMC.

56

3.4 Mixing Procedures

All mixing was performed in a laboratory rotary drum mixer having a capacity of three cubic feet. A picture can be found in Figure 3.11. A total of three batches were cast for each mix. The first batch contained all of the cylinders for the compressive strength, split tensile strength and rapid chloride permeability tests. The free shrinkage prisms, ring specimens and 9 cylinders were cast in the second batch. The cylinders were cast in order to check the compressive strength at 3, 7, and 28 days and compare with the first batch. This allowed for a quality control check to assure both batches were of the same quality. The third batch included the specimens involved with the creep test. Additional cylinders were not cast in this case because two prisms would be used in the compressive strength tests for the set up of the creep test. All the materials were kept in a sealed container, which was especially important for the sand because of its tendency to absorb moisture from the ambient environment. The materials were pre-weighed prior to the start of mixing, and the water and any AEA were weighed out in the same bucket. Also, all the cementitious material, such as cement, fly ash and silica fume were weighed out in the same bucket and premixed. The steps for the mixing sequence are as follows: 1. The mixer was wetted down using a garden hose so the inside surface of the mixer was damp and would not absorb any of the mixing water. 2. The coarse and fine aggregates were added along with half of the water and mixed completely. 3. Next, the cementitious materials were added with nearly all of the remaining water. A small amount of water was retained to clean out the graduated

57

cylinders containing the chemical admixtures. The mixture was rotated until thoroughly mixed. 4. Any chemical admixtures, for instance AEA, SRA, latex and defoamer, were then added and mixed thoroughly until uniform consistency. The HRWRA dosage was controlled to obtain desired slump. Upon completion of the mixing process, the temperature, air content, unit weight and slump were measured according to relevant ASTM and AASHTO Standards.

Figure 3.11

Rotary Mixer

58

3.5 Preparation of Test Specimens

In this section a description of the preparation of each type of specimen used in this research is presented. All test specimens were cast in accordance with ASTM C 192, Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory.

3.5.1 Cylinder Specimens for Compressive Strength Test

For each mix, a total of twenty cylinder specimens, 4 inches in diameter and 8 inches high, were cast in two batches. A picture of a typical concrete cylinder specimen can be found in Figure 3.12. For a single mixture, nine of the twenty cylinders were used for the compressive strength test. During casting, the concrete was placed in oiled plastic cylindrical molds, rodded and hammered according to ASTM specifications, and then the cylinders were covered with wet burlap and a plastic sheet and allowed to cure for 24 hours at room temperature and 100 percent relative humidity. After demolding, the cylinders were subjected to a curing regime specified in section 3.5.7.

3.5.2 Cylinder Specimens for Split Tensile Strength Test

Nine of the twenty cylinders cast from each mix were used for the split tensile strength test. The cylinders were cast and allowed to set for 24 hours under wet burlap and plastic before being demolded and subjected to a specified curing condition described in section 3.5.7. Figure 3.12 shows the typical cylinder specimen.

59

4 in.

8 in.

Figure 3.12

Typical Cylinder Specimen

3.5.3 Disk Specimens for Rapid Chloride Permeability Test

Of the twenty cylinders cast for each mix, two were used for the rapid chloride permeability test. The top 2 inches are cut from the cylinder by a diamond-wet cutter to make a disk 4 inches in diameter and 2 inches thick. The top of the cylinder was used to simulate the exposed section of a concrete bridge deck that is normally subjected to deicing chemicals. Figure 3.13 shows a typical disk specimen used in the rapid chloride permeability test.

60

2 in.

4 in.

Figure 3.13

Typical Disk Specimen

3.5.4 Prism Specimens for Length Change Measurement

For each mix, three prisms with dimensions 3 x 3 x 11.25 inches were cast for free shrinkage data. The prism molds were vibrated after pouring, using a table vibrator for 30 to 45 seconds. Similar to the cylinders, the beam specimens were covered with wet burlap and plastic and allowed to set for 24 hours before being demolded and placed in an environmentally controlled room. Each beam specimen contained a stud pin on its square face to facilitate use in the length measurement apparatus. Figure 3.14 shows a typical free shrinkage prism.

61

3 in. 11.25 in. 3 in.

Gage Studs at Both Ends

Figure 3.14

Typical Prism Specimen

3.5.5 Ring Specimens for Crack Monitoring

Two ring specimens were cast for each mix, each having an inner diameter of 12.5 inches, an outer diameter of 16 inches and a height of 6 inches. The mold consisted of a square wooden base on which a steel ring for the inner mold and a cardboard sonnet tube for the outer mold were placed. The steel ring had an inner diameter of 11.75 inches, an outer diameter of 12.25 inches and a height of 6 inches. A schematic of the ring set up can be found in Figure 3.15. Before casting, two strain gages were attached to the inside of the steel ring to facilitate monitoring of the strain throughout the testing program. The steel ring and sonnet tube were centered on the wooden base, filled with

62

Steel Ring Concrete Specimen

Silicone Rubber Sealant

6 in

11.75 in 12.25 in 16 in

Steel Ring

Concrete Specimen

Wooden Base

Figure 3.15

Schematic of Ring Set Up

63

concrete and vibrated for 30 to 60 seconds before being covered with wet burlap and plastic and allowed to set for 24 hours. After setting, the outer cardboard mold was peeled off and the top of the concrete immediately sealed with a silicone rubber sealant to avoid any moisture loss from the top surface of the concrete ring. The ring was then transported to an environmentally controlled room for monitoring. A picture of the ring specimen is shown in Figure 3.16.

Figure 3.16

Typical Ring Specimen

3.5.6 Prism Specimens for Creep Test

For each mix, six beams 6 x 6 x 12 inches were cast for the creep test; two of which were tested to failure in compression to determine the load for the creep test. Two

64

beams were set beside the creep machine for free shrinkage data collection in the same environment as the creep specimens and the remaining two were used in the creep machine for the creep test. The beams were cast in a similar manner to the other specimens. The concrete was placed and vibrated, then covered with wet burlap and plastic and allowed to set for 24 hours. After demolding, the beams were moved to an environmentally controlled room and allowed to cure for three days before set up of the creep test. During this curing time, gage studs were bonded to the free shrinkage and creep beams to facilitate use of the Digital Demec Gauge. More information regarding this test will be discussed in section 3.6.2.6. Due to both time and space constraints, only NC and HPC mixtures were tested for creep. Figure 3.17 shows a typical beam specimen used for the creep test.

Demec Gage Studs

6 in. 6 in.

12 in.

6 in.

Figure 3.17

Typical Beam Specimen

65

3.5.7 Curing of Different Types of Test Specimens

After each mixture was cast, the specimens were demolded after 24 hours and the curing regime began. All the cylinder specimens from NC, HPC and HPC-SRA mixtures were placed in a lime bath for 6 days after demolding and then moved to a rack to air cure in a room set at 73.4 3oF and 75 4 % relative humidity. The lime bath is used to ensure 100% moisture content and prevent any carbonation from the atmosphere. For the HPC-L and OLMC mixtures, the cylinders were demolded after 24 hours under wet burlap and immediately placed back under the wet burlap for another 24 hours, for a 2 day moist cure as recommended by ACI 548. As soon as the prism and ring specimens were demolded and prepared, they were moved to an environmentally controlled room, with the target temperature of 73oF and relative humidity 30 percent. The specimens remained in this room for the duration of the testing program. The beams for the creep test were demolded and moved to the control room for three days of curing before being transported to the creep machine for testing.

3.6 Testing Procedures

The testing procedures for all tests performed on both fresh concrete and hardened concrete are explained and the relevant ASTM and AASHTO Standards are given in this section.

66

3.6.1 Fresh Concrete Tests

Immediately after mixing a batch of concrete, the slump, air content, unit weight and temperature are all measured. The procedure for each measurement is given in the following sections.

3.6.1.1 Slump

After mixing a batch of concrete, the appearance of the mix was noted and slump was checked according to ASTM C 143, Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete and AASHTO T 119, Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete. If the slump was less than the target range set by the WVDOT-DOH, additional HRWRA was added to the mixture and rotated in the mixing drum for a few minutes before testing the slump again.

3.6.1.2 Air Content

Air content of fresh concrete was measured by the pressure method per ASTM C 231, Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method and AASHTO T 152, Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method.

67

3.6.1.3 Unit Weight

Just before the air content was measured, the unit weight was taken according to ASTM C 138, Standard Test Method for Unit Weight, Yield and Air Content of Concrete and AASHTO T 121, Weight per Cubic Foot, Yield and Air Content of Concrete.

3.6.1.4 Temperature

After mixing, and before casting, the temperature of the fresh concrete was taken with a standard thermometer with an accuracy of 0.5oF in accordance with ASTM C 1064, Standard Test Method for Temperature of Freshly Mixed Portland Cement Concrete.

3.6.2 Hardened Concrete Tests

Tests performed on hardened concrete include compressive strength, tensile strength, length change measurement, rapid chloride permeability, creep and restrained shrinkage monitoring. The following sections explain the details of each test and its corresponding ASTM and AASHTO Standards.

68

3.6.2.1 Compressive Strength Test

Compression tests were performed using a 350,000 lb capacity hydraulic compression machine according to ASTM C 39, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens and AASHTO T 22, Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. Cylinders were tested for compressive strength after curing for 3, 7 and 28 days. For each mix, three cylinders were tested on the given day and averaged for a final value of compressive strength.

3.6.2.2 Split Tensile Strength Test

Similar to the compression test, the split tensile test used the same 350,000 lb hydraulic compression machine. Cylinders were placed horizontally and compressed until a split or crack formed as per ASTM C 496, Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens and AASHTO T 198, Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. Split tensile tests were measured on the same schedule as compression tests, after 3, 7 and 28 days. Again, for each mixture, three cylinders were tested on each day and averaged for the split tensile strength.

69

3.6.2.3 Length Change Measurement Test

Length change measurements of the prism specimens started as soon as demolding occurred. Since the length change test is an indication of shrinkage, which begins immediately after the specimen is subjected to an environment with a relative humidity less than 100 percent, an initial reading is imperative. Therefore, immediately after demolding, the specimens were measured to obtain the initial value with no assumed shrinkage according to ASTM C 157, Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic-Cement Mortar and Concrete and AASHTO T 160, Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic Cement Mortar and Concrete. The prism specimens were then measured with a digital length comparator every three days for 90 days. Each length change test required first measuring a 250 mm long reference rod for calibration purposes. A picture of this can be found in Figure 3.18. Next, the specimen was measure and its length recorded as shown in Figure 3.19. The weight of each specimen was recorded, along with each length change measurement, to track the weight loss with free shrinkage. Three specimens from each concrete mixture were used in this testing schedule. The strains were calculated and averaged fro each mixture giving a single reading for each day.

70

Figure 3.18

Length Change Apparatus with Rod

Figure 3.19

Length Change Apparatus with Specimen

71

3.6.2.4 Restrained Shrinkage of Ring Specimens

After the ring specimens were demolded, sealed and moved to the environmentally controlled room, the strain gages were hooked up to a computer data acquisition system. Strain readings were taken once every 24 hours for 90 days. Every three days for 90 days, the rings were visually inspected for cracks. If a new crack appeared, the crack was highlighted, the date noted and the length and width of the crack monitored. Only vertical cracks were recorded. The crack widths were measured at the quarter points of the ring with a microscope having a magnification x40, then averaged into a final crack width. A picture of the microscope used to measure crack widths is shown in Figure 3.20.

Figure 3.20

Microscope with Magnification x40 to Measure Crack Width

72

3.6.2.5 Rapid Chloride Permeability Test

The disks cut from the top portion of the concrete cylinders were used as the specimens for the rapid chloride permeability test. Two disks from each mixture were cut after curing for 28 days and tested within a week. The test is conducted in accordance with ASTM C 1202, Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concretes Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration and AASHTO T 277, Electrical Indication of Concretes Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration. The steps followed in this test are as follows:

1. The circumferential surfaces of the disks were coated with a silicone sealant and allowed to dry for at least 24 hours. 2. Approximately a gallon of tap water was vigorously boiled and allowed to cool in an airtight container to avoid air in the water that might block the pores in the concrete disk specimen and affect the transport of chloride ions through the concrete during the chloride permeability test. 3. After the sealant dried, the disk specimens were placed in a vacuum desiccator with the flat surfaces of the disks exposed. The vacuum system was able to achieve and maintain an internal pressure less than 1 mmHg, or 133 Pa, for 3 hours. 4. The specimens were then covered with the cooled boiled water and vacuumed for an additional hour.

73

5. The vacuum was turned off and the specimens sat immersed in water for 18 2 hours at atmospheric pressure. 6. Next, the ends of the disks were sealed onto Plexiglas cells with silicone sealant and allowed to dry again for at least 24 hours. 7. The cell attached to the top portion of the concrete disk was filled with a 3% sodium chloride solution, and the other cell filled with a 0.3N sodium hydroxide solution.

At this point the RCPT machine was turned on and allowed to run for 6 hours, collecting data every 30 minutes. During the test, 60 volts of electric current was applied across the disk specimen between copper screen electrodes mounted in each cell. The total charge passed during the 6 hour period was the measure of the chloride permeability of the concrete. Figure 3.21 shows the chloride permeability test apparatus with test specimens.

74

Figure 3.21

Rapid Chloride Permeability Test

3.6.2.6 Creep Test

The creep specimens were cured for three days before starting the test. For each mixture, six beams were cast, two were tested in 3-day compression and the failure load averaged. Forty percent of this value was used as the load in the creep test. Two beams were tested in creep according to ASTM C 512, Standard Test Method for Creep of Concrete in Compression. Gage studs were bonded to the creep specimens in order to record changes in length of the specimens while under load. The length between gage studs was measured using a mechanical strain recorder with digital display prior to loading and immediately after loading, and then measurements were taken every three days for 90 days. The magnitude of applied load for the HPC mixture was monitored

75

with a load cell. Along with the creep specimens, two beams were placed beside the creep machine to monitor free shrinkage. These beams also had gage studs bonded to one side and the length change due to free shrinkage was recorded. The creep tests were performed on the NC and HPC mixtures only due to the constraints of space and time. The creep machine with test specimens is shown in Figure 3.22.

Figure 3.22

Creep Machine

Now that the experimental procedure has been presented, the next chapter will discuss data collection and analysis of the results for each test.

76

Chapter 4

TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the test results for data collected from all mixtures in the fresh and hardened concrete states. For each test, after presentation of the data, a discussion of the results follows. The fresh concrete properties tested include slump, air content, unit weight, and temperature, while the hardened concrete properties tested were compressive strength and split tensile strength at different ages, drying shrinkage, creep strain, chloride permeability and cracking tendencies. Complete data can be found in the Appendices as noted in the various sections.

4.2 Fresh Concrete Properties

Slump, air content, unit weight and temperature were the fresh concrete properties measured according to relevant ASTM Standards and the corresponding AASHTO Standards mentioned previously in Chapter 3. Table 4.1 presents the fresh concrete properties of all the mix designs.

77

Table 4.1 MIXTURE TYPE NC HPC HPC- SRA HPC-L OLMC AIR CONTENT (%) 7.1 6.5 5.7 5.5 3.8

Fresh Concrete Properties SLUMP (in) 6.25 6 6.5 6 7.5 UNIT WEIGHT TEMPERATURE (pcf) 142 147 148 146 147 (oF) 73 76 70 68 64

The target air content percentage for all concrete mixtures was 6.0. All mixtures were around the target air content with the exception of the OLMC mix. This is a result of the defoamer used to decrease the amount of entrained air from the latex in the mixture. It appears that less defoamer could have been used, but the mixture was accepted considering the WVDOT-DOH requirement for air content of latex modified concrete. The target slump for this study was 5 to 7 inches. The HRWRA dosage was controlled during mixing in order to achieve a slump within this range. The only mixture to fall out of the 5 to 7 inch range was the OLMC mix. This is due to the fact that the concrete overlay contains a high percentage of latex, which increases the slump. It is assumed that slightly higher slump of OLMC would help to overcome the difficulties that might have been caused due to low air content of the mixture. Again, this was not an issue and the mixture was accepted. In the results in Table 4.1, the addition of SRA did not seem to affect the slump of the HPC-SRA mix. Similar results were found in the research by Shah et al. (1996), where the effects of SRA on cracking of concrete were

78

studied. It was found that the slump was unaffected when concrete mixtures contained SRA. A normal unit weight for concrete is about 145 to 150 pcf. The results of the unit weights for all mixtures were comparable and ranged from 142 pcf to 148 pcf. The NC mixture had the lowest unit weight of 142 pcf. This may be the result of NC having the highest air content at 7.1%. All of the HPC mixtures consistently had a higher unit weight and thus were denser than the NC mixture. The temperatures of all the mixes ranged from 64 to 76 oF. The latex mixtures had a lower temperature compared to the others because latex retards the hydration process and thus lowers the heat of hydration immediately after mixing, when the temperature was taken.

4.3 Compressive Strength and Split Tensile Strength Results

Both the compressive strength and split tensile strength tests were performed according to ASTM and AASHTO Standards mentioned in Chapter 3. For each mixture, compressive and split tensile strengths were measured at ages 3, 7 and 28 days. At each age, three specimens were tested for both compressive strength and split tensile strength and the results were then averaged. Tables of results for the individual specimens along with the averages and standard deviations can be found in Appendix A, Tables A.1 through A.15. Both the compressive strength and split tensile strength tests were performed at a constant loading rate and the compression machine displayed the ultimate load of the

79

concrete cylinders. The following equation was used to calculate the compressive strength after the ultimate load was recorded:

fc =

'

Pu A

[4.1]

Where:

fc = Compressive Strength (psi) Pu = Ultimate Load (lbs) A = Cross Sectional Area (in.2)

The cross sectional area for the concrete cylinder specimens was 12.57 in2 calculated from the diameter, which was measured for each cylinder and averaged. In order to calculate the split tensile strength the following equation was used from the ASTM Standards:

f / sp =

2 Pu dl

[4.2]

Where:

fsp = Split Tensile Strength (psi) Pu = Ultimate Load (lbs) d = Diameter (in.) l = Length (in.)

The concrete cylinders had a 4-inch diameter and a length of 8 inches, when measured and averaged.

80

The average compressive strength and split tensile strength results for all mixtures are presented in Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 respectively. For a visual comparison, bar graphs of the compressive strengths and split tensile strengths for all mixtures can be found in Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2. A normalized graph of the compressive strength and split tensile strength is presented in Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4 to show the rate gain of strength. Figure 4.5 shows the relationship between split tensile strength and compressive strength. For the compressive strength, the HPC mixture had the greatest 28-day strength at 7535 psi. The mixtures containing latex were next with HPC-L having a 28-day strength of 6965 psi and OLMC with 6950 psi. This shows that the decrease in the w/c ratio in the latex mix designs compensated for the usual decrease in strength when using latex in concrete mixtures. As expected, NC had the lowest 28-day compressive strength of 6100 psi. The addition of SRA in HPC-SRA appears to have reduced the strength of the mixture, since HPC-SRA had the lowest 28-day strength of all the HPC mixtures with 6500 psi. Table 4.2 shows that the latex mixtures gained an average of 64% of its strength in the first three days as compared to the other mixtures that had gained on average 53%. The NC, HPC and HPC-SRA mixtures all gained 31% of their strength between 7 and 28 days as compared to an average of 24% for the latex mixtures. The normalized graph in Figure 4.3 shows that the latex mixtures have higher rates of strength gain in the first 7 days than the other mixtures. HPC-SRA and NC have the lowest rate of strength gain in the first 7 days as shown in Figure 4.3. All mixtures gained strength with time, which is expected.

81

Table 4.2 MIXTURE TYPE AGE (Days) 3 7 28

Compressive Strength at Various Ages for All Mixtures NC (psi) 3130 4230 6100 HPC (psi) 4245 5175 7535 HPC-SRA (psi) 3380 4485 6500 HPC-L (psi) 4495 5560 6965 OLMC (psi) 4340 5185 6950

Studies by Weiss et al. (1998) and Shah et al. (1992) showed that the addition of SRA reduced the compressive strength, which is in agreement with the current study. Shah et al. (1992) suggests that less water be used, which would counteract the negative effects on the compressive strength. A study by Nmai et al. (1998) concluded that the use of SRA had a minimal effect on the compressive strength. A further study by Shah et al. (1996) suggested that SRA added to plain concrete increased the compressive strength. It appears that additional research is needed to make any substantial conclusions on this topic. A large number of published information, not referenced in this study, indicate that addition of silica fume and lower w/c ratio increase the compressive strength of concrete significantly. Looking at the mixture proportions on Table 3.5 and the results from Table 4.2, it is apparent that NC had the lowest compressive strength, did not contain silica fume and had the highest water content. HPC, HPC-SRA and HPC-L all contained silica fume and had lower w/c ratio that resulted in higher compressive strengths than in NC. In a latex concrete study by Chen and Chung (1996), it was found

82

that the 28-day compressive strength increased with the addition of latex, which is contrary to what this study found. Sprinkel (1988) specifically discusses the early strength development of latex modified concrete overlays in his study. The present study saw the early strength development in the latex mixtures for compressive strength, then the rate of strength gain decreased and HPC surpassed the compressive strength of the latex mixtures by the 28th day. For the split tensile strength, HPC-L had the greatest 28-day strength at 785 psi. OLMC was next with a 28-day strength of 710 psi. Again, NC had the lowest split tensile strength at 580 psi and HPC-SRA was the lowest among all the HPC mixtures with 605 psi. The HPC mixture was in the middle with a 28-day split tensile strength of 695 psi. OLMC had the greatest rate of split tensile strength gain as shown in Figure 4.4. OLMC had 68% of its split tensile strength at 3 days while the other mixtures had an average of 61%. HPC gained 38% of its strength between 7 and 28 days, whereas OLMC gained only 19% of its split tensile strength in the same time period. The latex mixtures had a higher split tensile strength than HPC, whereas the opposite was true for the compressive strength test results. For all mixtures, strength increased with time, which is expected. Comparing the split tensile strength with other studies, again the addition of SRA did not significantly alter the tensile strength in the study by Shah et al. (1992). Conversely, Table 4.3 shows a similar trend as in the compressive test results, a reduction in strength. Wiegrink et al. (1996) showed that as with the compressive strength, the split tensile strength increases with increasing silica fume. HPC-L contains the most silica fume and also yielded the highest split tensile strength. This may not be a strong

83

conclusion since the mixtures in this study have additional admixtures as compared to the study by Wiegrink et al. (1996). Additionally, both Sprinkel (1988) and Chen and Chung (1996) found that the addition of latex increased the tensile strength of the concrete, which supports the findings in this study. The split tensile strength for both HPC-L and OLMC were well above that for all the other mixtures, including HPC. Sprinkel explains that the higher strength is due to the lower w/c ratio and the plastic film, which the latex emulsion produces within the concrete, that yield higher bond strength between the paste and aggregate.

Table 4.3 MIXTURE TYPE AGE (Days) 3 7 28

Split Tensile Strength at Various Ages for All Mixtures NC (psi) 355 405 580 HPC (psi) 410 435 695 HPC-SRA (psi) 380 400 605 HPC-L (psi) 470 550 785 OLMC (psi) 480 575 710

84

Split Tensile Strength (psi) 200


2000 3000

Compressive Strength (psi)

300

NC HPC NC

400
4000

500

600

700

800

900

HPC
3

5000

6000

7000

8000

Figure 4.1

Figure 4.2
HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC

HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC

NC HPC
7

NC HPC
7 Age (Days)

Compressive Strength at Various Ages

Split Tensile Strength at Various Ages

85
HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC NC HPC
28

Age (Days)

HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC

NC HPC
28

HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC

HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC

Compressive Strength/Compressive Strength at 28 Days * 100

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3 7 Age (Days) 28 NC HPC HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC

Figure 4.3

Normalized Compressive Strength for All Mixtures

Split Tensile Strength/Split Tensile Strength at 28 Days * 100

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
3 7

NC HPC HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC

Age (Days)

28

Figure 4.4

Normalized Split Tensile Strength for All Mixtures

86

800 700 NC HPC 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 10 20 HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC ACI Equation HPC-SRA y = 6.2453x R2 = 0.9637 HPC-L y = 7.8871x R2 = 0.9819

Split Tensile Strength (psi) fsp '

OLMC y = 8.0208x R2 = 0.9862

y = 7.4x ACI Equation

HPC y = 6.9888x R2 = 0.941 NC y = 6.7765x R2 = 0.9763

Compressive Strength (psi), fc'


1000 30 40 2000 50 60
1/2

3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 70 80 90 100 110

fc'

Figure 4.5

Relationship Between Split Tensile Strength and Square Root of Compressive Strength

ACI 363R-92 has published a relationship between split tensile strength and the square root of the compressive strength for HPC. The relationship is shown below:

f ' sp = 7.4 f 'c For 3,000 psi < fc < 12,000 psi Where: fsp = Split Tensile Strength (psi) fc = Compressive Strength (psi)

[4.3]

87

Figure 4.5 shows the line corresponding with the ACI equation and the data from all the mixtures with the best-fit straight line. Table 4.4 shows a summary of the slope (m) of each line in the fsp vs. fc1/2 graph and the R2 value for comparison. The latex mixtures have a higher slope as compared to the ACI equation and are more ductile in comparison, which is a characteristic of latex concretes. Between the latex concretes, OLMC has a higher slope (8.0208) than HPC-L (7.8871), which shows that higher latex content reduces the brittleness of concrete. All of the other mixtures have a slope less than the ACI equation and are therefore more brittle in comparison to the ACI model. Because of the variations in slopes, a general equation may be written as follows:

f ' sp = m f 'c

[4.4]

Where the value of m is given in Table 4.4 for each concrete mixture studied here.

Table 4.4 MIXTURE TYPE NC

Comparison of Slopes and R2 Values from ACI Relationship HPC HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC ACI 363

Slope (m) R2

6.7765 0.98

6.9888 0.94

6.2453 0.96

7.8871 0.98

8.0208 0.99

7.4 -

88

4.4 Length Change Measurement Results

The length change test that measures free shrinkage of concrete prism specimens followed the procedures presented in ASTM C 157 and AASHTO T 160 as previously stated in Chapter 3. The shrinkage specimens were prepared in batch 2 of each concrete mixture, from which additional cylinder specimens were also prepared to measure the compressive strength of the concrete. This was done in order to ensure consistency between the batches. The compressive strength results for batch 1 and batch 2 are presented in Table 4.5, which shows that the variability of the compressive strength for the two batches cast at different times was within reasonable limits. For the free shrinkage data, weight and length change readings were taken every 3 days for 90 days and the results are summarized in Tables B.1 through B.10 in Appendix B. Due to the large fluctuation in temperature and humidity of the environmentally controlled room toward the end of the data collection period, particularly the last 15 days, data was only used up to 75 days for analysis. Graphs showing the average free shrinkage and average moisture loss percentage for the 3 specimens per mixture over the 75-day period are found in Figures 4.6 through 4.10. These figures show the trends in moisture loss and free shrinkage for all concrete mixtures. In order to compare the free shrinkage among mixtures, Figure 4.11 shows the free shrinkage data collected for each mix design. Figure 4.12 shows the relationship between moisture loss as a percentage and free shrinkage for each mixture. ACI and Hou et al. (2001) established equations that predict the free shrinkage at any time when the ultimate shrinkage strain is known. The

89

equations from both ACI and Hou et al. (2001) are compared with calculated equations for each mixture at the end of this section. The testing procedure for the shrinkage specimens involved an initial set of readings taken as soon as the specimens were demolded. This required measuring a 250 mm long reference bar and then measuring the length of the concrete specimen. These values were then subtracted. Every 3 days the specimens were measured again using the same procedure. In order to calculate the free shrinkage strain the following equation was used:

F .S . =

l lo

250 x106

[4.5]

Where:

F.S. = Free Shrinkage Strain (Strains)


l = Specimen Length Rod Length (mm) lo = Initial Specimen Length Initial Rod Length (mm)

The equation for moisture loss percentage is as follows:

M .L. = (1

W ) x100 Wo

[4.6]

Where:

M.L. = Moisture Loss (%) W = Weight at any given time (lb) Wo = Initial Weight (lb)

90

Since the shrinkage specimens were cast in a separate batch (batch 2) from the compressive strength and split tensile strength specimens (batch 1), a number of compressive strength specimens were cast along with the shrinkage specimens to check the inter-batch variability. Table 4.5 shows that the results of the compressive strength tests are comparable and therefore the inter-batch variability is low and thus acceptable.

Table 4.5 AGE (Days) BATCH # MIX TYPE NC HPC HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC 1 (psi) 3130 4245 3380 4495 4340

Compressive Strength Comparison of Batches 3 2 (psi) 3530 4150 3530 4590 4655 1 (psi) 4230 5175 4485 5560 5185 7 2 (psi) 4830 5795 4800 5810 5650 1 (psi) 6100 7535 6500 6965 6950 28 2 (psi) 6700 8620 7625 7825 7665

Figures 4.6 through 4.10 show that for all cases the free shrinkage increases with moisture loss. The reduction in free shrinkage in Figure 4.8 for HPC-SRA is significantly greater than the corresponding change in weight and shows that the effectiveness of the SRA seems to be related to factors other than weight loss, possibly a reduction in surface tension or a change in microstructure. The latex mixtures tended to have a smaller moisture loss percentage than the other mixtures with no effect on the amount of shrinkage. So HPC-SRA had noticeably smaller shrinkage and the latex 91

mixtures had a noticeably smaller moisture loss percentage. Latex retained the moisture efficiently within the concrete by its film formation but this retention of moisture could not effectively reduce the shrinkage of the latex mixtures.
800 700 Shrinkage ( Strains) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 10 20 30 40 Time (Days) 50 60 70 80 5.00 4.50 Moisture Loss (%) 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50

Free Shrinkage o Moisture Loss

2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00

Figure 4.6
800 700 Shrinkage (Strains) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 20

Free Shrinkage and Moisture Loss for NC


5.00 4.50 3.50 3.00 Moisture Loss (%) 4.00

Free Shrinkage o Moisture Loss

2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00

40 Time (Days)

60

80

Figure 4.7

Free Shrinkage and Moisture Loss for HPC 92

800 Free Shrinkage ( Strains) 700 Figure 4.8 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 20 40 TIme (Days) 60 80

5.00

Free Shrinkage and Moisture Loss for HPC-SRA 4.50


4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 Moisture Loss (%)

Free Shrinkage o Moisture Loss

1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00

Figure 4.8

Free Shrinkage and Moisture Loss for HPC-SRA

800 Free Shrinkage ( Strains) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 20 40 Time (Days) 60 80

5.00

3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00

Figure 4.9

Free Shrinkage and Moisture Loss for HPC-L

93

Moisture Loss (%)

Free Shrinkage o Moisture Loss

4.50 4.00

800 Free Shrinkage ( Strains) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 20 40 Time (Days) 60 80

3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00

Figure 4.10

Free Shrinkage and Moisture Loss for OLMC

A comparison of free shrinkage among all mixtures is graphically shown in Figure 4.11. Here it is evident that HPC-SRA has the least amount of shrinkage over the 75-day period and NC has the highest value. The shrinkage of the latex mixtures is less than NC and HPC but more than HPC-SRA. Figure 4.12 shows the relationship between free shrinkage and moisture loss. Looking at Figure 4.12, it is easily observed that HPCSRA has the least amount of free shrinkage but not the least amount of moisture loss. The latex mixtures have similar trends in Figure 4.12, having lower moisture loss percentages in comparison to the other mixtures; likewise NC and HPC have complimenting trends.

94

Moisture Loss (%)

Free Shrinkage Free Shrinkage o Moisture Loss o Moisture Loss

5.00 4.50 4.00

800 700 Free Shrinkage ( Strains) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 NC HPC HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC 70 80

Drying Time (Days)

Figure 4.11

Free Shrinkage for All Mixture Types

800 700 Free Shrinkage (Strain) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0.00 -100
NC o HPC HPC-SRA x HPC-L * OLMC

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Moisture Loss (%)

Figure 4.12

Free Shrinkage versus Moisture Loss

95

There have been a number of studies on the free shrinkage of concrete, a few of which will be compared with the results from this study. Looking at the rates of shrinkage in Figure 4.11, the shrinkage quickly developed in the first 3 weeks then the rate of shrinkage growth drastically slowed down. A similar trend occurred in a study by Li et al. (1999). Four papers were found with comparable research programs studying the influence of SRA in concrete mixtures. Every program found that the use of SRA significantly reduces the free shrinkage of concrete specimens (Nmai et al. 1998, Shah et al. 1992, Shah et al. 1996, and Weiss and Shah 1997). In the two studies by Shah et al. (1992 and 1996), a reduction in free shrinkage ranging from 22% to 53% depending on the type and amount of SRA compared to the control mix was observed. In addition to the large reduction in free shrinkage, the studies by Shah et al. (1992 and 1996) showed that there was no noticeable change in weight loss. The large reduction in free shrinkage without a noticeable change in weight loss shows that free shrinkage depends on more than just moisture loss in case of concrete with SRA. The results from this experimental program support the findings by Shah et al. (1992 and 1996). Additional support for free shrinkage to depend on more than just moisture loss is found in the research by Wiegrink et al. (1996), who studied the shrinkage cracking of high-strength concrete containing silica fume. This study concluded that mixtures with higher water contents have higher weight loss. Wiegrink et al. (1996) compared the free shrinkage and weight loss results, which showed that concrete made with higher water content lost more water, but the corresponding free shrinkage was virtually the same. This again reinforces the notion that shrinkage is related to other factors in addition to weight loss. A possible

96

explanation may be that concrete containing silica fume has finer pore structure that may proportionately increase free shrinkage (Wiegrink et al. 1996). An empirical shrinkage prediction formula has been proposed by ACI 209R-92 for normal strength concrete. A comparison of the prediction of free shrinkage strain for the concrete mixtures in this study using ACI 209 equations, modified ACI 209 equations by Hou et al. (2001), and equations developed using experimental data collected in this study will now be made. All equations used will be in the same form as those in ACI 209, which is the rectangular hyperbolic form. ACI 209 states that the following equation predicts the free shrinkage strain at any time:

( sh )t =

t * ( sh )u f +t

[4.6]

Where:

(sh)t = Free Shrinkage Strain (in./in.) t = Time (days) (sh)u = Ultimate Free Shrinkage Strain = 780*sh (in./in.) f = 35 sh = Correction Factor

Table 4.6 MIXTURE TYPE NC HPC HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC

Correction Factors for Each Mixture CORRECTION FACTOR 1.44 1.45 1.46 1.47 1.93 97

The correction factors, sh, for each mixture used in the ACI 209 equation are shown in Table 4.6. The correction factor allows for different size specimens and variations in mix designs. In a study by Hou et al. (2001), it was found that the ACI 209 prediction for free shrinkage strain was not accurate for HPC, so Hou et al. (2001) improved upon it. He used the rectangular hyperbolic form of the ACI 209 equation but added an additional factor, st,s, which is used to calculate (sh)u, as shown below:

st , s = 1.20 0.05 * f 'c 1

[4.8]

Where:

fc = 28 Day Compressive Strength (ksi)

So (sh)u becomes:

( sh )u = 780 * sh * st , s

[4.9]

Table 4.7, shown later in this section, presents the correction factors and ultimate free shrinkage strain for the concrete mixtures in this study calculated using the method presented by Hou et al. (2001) and ACI 209. Free shrinkage strain prediction by ACI 209 using equation 4.6 and the modified equation used by Hou et al. (2001) are compared with calculated equations of the same form using the collected free shrinkage data from this study. This was done by rearranging equation 4.6 into a linear equation of the form y = mx + b, similar to the

98

procedure followed by Hou et al. (2001) in his study. The results yield an equation seen below:

sh

1 1 * + ( sh )u t ( sh )u
f

[4.10]

Where:

sh
f

=y

( sh )u 1 =x t 1 ( sh )u

=m

=b

The data collected for each mixture was manipulated as necessary to get the graphs with best-fit linear equations as shown in Figures 4.13 through 4.17. This was done to determine the factor, f, and the ultimate free shrinkage strain, (sh)u, for each concrete mixture, and then these values are used to produce nonlinear graphs to compare with the ACI 209 and Hou et al. (2001) predictions for free shrinkage strain. Table 4.7 shows values for f and (sh)u calculated from the best-fit linear equations along with the values calculated using the methods in the ACI 209 and Hou et al. (2001).

99

0.00900 0.00800 0.00700 0.00600 1/sh 0.00500 0.00400 0.00300 0.00200 0.00100 0.00000 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 1/t 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 y = 0.0204x + 0.001 R2 = 0.9845

Figure 4.13

Best-Fit Linear Equation for NC Free Shrinkage Strain

0.00800 0.00700 0.00600 0.00500


1/sh

y = 0.0177x + 0.0012 2 R = 0.9746

0.00400 0.00300 0.00200 0.00100 0.00000 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 1/t 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350

Figure 4.14

Best-Fit Linear Equation for HPC Free Shrinkage Strain

100

0.01600 0.01400 0.01200 0.01000


1/sh

y = 0.0664x + 0.001 2 R = 0.9418

0.00800 0.00600 0.00400 0.00200 0.00000 0.000 0.050 0.100 1/t 0.150 0.200

Figure 4.15

Best-Fit Linear Equation for HPC-SRA Free Shrinkage Strain

0.01000 0.00900 0.00800 0.00700 1/sh 0.00600 0.00500 0.00400 0.00300 0.00200 0.00100 0.00000 0.000 0.050 0.100

y = 0.0232x + 0.0014 R2 = 0.9863

0.150 1/t

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

Figure 4.16

Best-Fit Linear Equation for HPC-L Free Shrinkage Strain

101

0.01200 0.01000 0.00800


1/sh

y = 0.029x + 0.0013 R2 = 0.9937

0.00600 0.00400 0.00200 0.00000 0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150 1/t

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

Figure 4.17

Best-Fit Linear Equation for OLMC Free Shrinkage Strain

Table 4.7

Constants Used in Free Shrinkage Strain Prediction EXPERIMENTAL HOU et al. (2001) R2 0.9845 0.9746 0.9418 0.9863 0.9937 f 29.75 26.16 28.75 27.59 27.63 (sh)u 1003 923 981 955 956 ACI-209 f 35 35 35 35 35 (sh)u 1121 1129 1140 1150 1506

MIXTURE TYPE NC HPC HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC

f 20.40 14.75 66.40 16.57 22.31

(sh)u 1000 833 1000 714 769

102

The linear equations found in Figures 4.13 to 4.17 were then converted back into their nonlinear form and plotted with equations formed using methods from ACI 209 and Hou et al. (2001), which can be found in Figures 4.18 through 4.22.
1200 Free Shrinkage ( Strains) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 20 40 Time (Days) 60 80 Experimental ACI 209 Hou et al. (2001)

Figure 4.18
1200 Free Shrinkage (Strains) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 10

Predictions for Free Shrinkage Strain in NC

Experimental ACI 209 Hou et al. (2001)

20

30

40 Time (Days)

50

60

70

80

Figure 4.19

Predictions for Free Shrinkage Strain in HPC

103

1200 Free Shrinakge (Strains) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 10 20 30 40 Time (Days) 50 60 70 80 Experimental ACI 209 Hou et al. (2001)

Figure 4.20

Predictions for Free Shrinkage Strain in HPC-SRA

1200 Free Shrinkage (Strains) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 10 20 30 40 Time (Days) 50 60 70 80 Experimental ACI 209 Hou et al. (2001)

Figure 4.21

Predictions for Free Shrinkage Strain in HPC-L

104

1200
Free Shrinkage (Strains)

1000 800 600 400 200 0 0

Experimental ACI 209 Hou et al. (2001)

10

20

30

40 Time (Days)

50

60

70

80

Figure 4.22

Predictions for Free Shrinkage Strain in OLMC

The ACI 209 prediction yields close results for NC and HPC, but does not accurately predict the free shrinkage strain for HPC-SRA, HPC-L and OLMC. This shows that another empirical equation must be generated for concretes containing uncommon admixtures, such as SRA and latex. The prediction by Hou et al. (2001) was accurate for NC and HPC and also came much closer to predicting the free shrinkage strain in the latex mixtures, especially for OLMC, when compared with the ACI 209 equation. Figures 4.18 and 4.19 show that equations from ACI 209 and Hou et al. (2001) can predict the shrinkage development of NC and HPC without a significant amount of error. However, both the prediction equations underestimated the early age shrinkage values. Since the ACI 209 prediction did not include the high strength factors, it predicted higher shrinkage than Hou et al. (2001) in Figure 4.19 for HPC. Figure 4.20

105

shows that both ACI 209 and Hou et al. (2001) significantly overestimated the shrinkage development of HPC-SRA. The difference is due to the physicochemical effect of SRA in the present HPC-SRA mixture, which was completely ignored in their equations. From Figure 4.21, it is evident that both ACI 209 and Hou et al. (2001) overestimated the shrinkage of HPC-L beyond 20 days. However, the error was much less than for HPCSRA. For the OLMC mixture, the ACI 209 prediction was a gross overestimation of both the rate of shrinkage development as well as the ultimate shrinkage. The prediction equation by Hou et al. (2001), though slightly overestimated, was close to the OLMC at early ages. Both the ACI 209 and Hou et al. (2001) did not consider the influence of latex in their prediction equations. Since addition of latex reduced both the rate of shrinkage and the ultimate shrinkage of the HPC-L and OLMC mixtures, none of the published equations could predict it correctly, just as the case with HPC-SRA. It appears as though additional research is needed to develop equations for shrinkage predictions using factors for various admixtures.

4.5 Creep Test Results

The creep tests were only performed on NC and HPC due to time constraints. The creep tests were run for 90 days and readings were taken every 3 days throughout the duration of the test. Two prism specimens, for each mixture, were tested in compression in order to calculate the 3-day compressive strength. Loads with a magnitude of 40% of this 3-day compressive strength were applied to the specimens in the creep test. Two prism specimens per mixture were placed beside the creep machine and monitored for

106

free shrinkage on the same schedule as the creep specimens. The complete results for the free shrinkage and creep tests can be found in Appendix D, Tables D.1 through D.5. A graph of the specific creep comparison between NC and HPC can be found in Figure 4.23. Once the creep test was set up, measurements were taken with the Digital Demec Gauge every 3 days for 3 months. For both the free shrinkage specimens and the creep specimens, the length between the two stud pins was measured and then the reference bar was measured. These two values were subtracted and the strain for both the free shrinkage and the total strain due to creep and free shrinkage at any given day were calculated by the following equation:

Strain = (lo l ) xG

[4.11]

Where:

Strain = Either Free Shrinkage Strain or Total Strain due to Creep and Free Shrinkage lo = Initial Specimen Length Initial Bar Length (mm) l = Specimen Length Bar Length (mm) G = Gauge Factor (5380)

Equation 4.11 calculates the strain due to free shrinkage from the prisms kept beside the creep machine and total strain from the specimens in the creep machine. In order to find the strain strictly from creep the average free shrinkage strain is subtracted from the

107

average total strain at a given time. Then to calculate specific creep the following equation is used:

SC =

CS

CSo

[4.12]

Where:

SC = Specific Creep (Strains/psi) CS = Creep Strain (Strains) CS = Initial Creep Strain (Strains) = 40% of the 3-Day Compressive Strength (psi)

The loads used for the creep test for NC and HPC were 51.6 kips and 58.7 kips respectively. These were calculated from the 3-day compressive strength tests of the corresponding mixtures. The actual load on each mixture was slightly less than calculated due to relaxation of the system after initial set up. A load cell was used for the HPC creep set up and the load was monitored throughout the testing. The load data can be found in Appendix D, Table 5.6. Figure 4.23 shows the specific creep for both NC and HPC in a graphical form. The figure shows that the HPC experienced less creep than the NC mixture. This may be due to the lower w/c ratio and the addition of silica fume to the HPC mixture. A study by Wiegrink et al. (1996) showed that creep decreases with the increase in silica fume content and decrease of water content. The values of creep at early ages are important to assess the cracking characteristics of concrete, particularly in

108

high strength concrete, which tends to crack earlier than normal concrete (Wiegrink et al. 1996).

0.400 Specific Creep (Strains/psi) 0.350 0.300 0.250 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 0 20 40 60 80 100 Time Since Loading (Days) NC HPC

Figure 4.23

Specific Creep for NC and HPC

4.6 Discussion of Ring Specimen Cracking

The ring specimens were monitored for 90 days in the environmentally controlled room for the formation of cracks. Strain gages attached to the inside steel ring also monitored the changes in strain due to restrained shrinkage. During the 90 days of monitoring, the combination of an older data acquisition system and a power outage contributed to a significant amount of lost data, which deemed further collection of the strain data useless. The specimens were monitored for new cracks for the entire 90 days and the width and length of all vertical cracks were measured every 3 days once the crack first appeared. In order to maintain consistency with the data analysis from specimens 109

placed in the environmentally controlled room, data collected for the ring specimens for the first 75-days due to the fluctuation in temperature and humidity seen towards the end of the 90-day data collection period. No new cracks formed in this time period. This was done for all specimens, free shrinkage specimens and ring specimens, housed in the environmentally controlled room. The complete data collected for the ring specimens can be found in Appendix E, Tables E.1 through E.6. Figures 4.24 through 4.27 show the crack width as a function of time. The best-fit equation is shown on each figure. Figure 4.28 shows all the data for each mixture on one graph for comparison. The bar graph in Figure 4.29 shows the average crack width after 75 days of drying.

0.60 0.55 Crack Width (mm) 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0 20 40 60 80 100 Time (Days) y = 0.1273Ln(x) - 0.0253 R2 = 0.9497

Figure 4.24

Crack Data for NC with Best-Fit Equation

110

0.15 0.14 Crack Width (mm) 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0 20 40 60 80 100 Time (Days) y = 0.0415Ln(x) - 0.0461 2 R = 0.9304

Figure 4.25

Crack Data for HPC with Best-Fit Equation

0.11 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.01 0 20 40

y = 0.068Ln(x) - 0.203 2 R = 0.8739

Crack Width (mm)

60

80

100

Time (Days)

Figure 4.26

Crack Data for HPC-SRA with Best-Fit Equation

111

0.17 0.16
Crack Width (mm)

0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0 20

y = 0.1138Ln(x) - 0.3542 2 R = 0.6332

40

60

80

100

Time (Days)

Figure 4.27

Crack Data for HPC-L with Best-Fit Equation

Figures 4.24 through 4.27 show that the general trend is an increase in crack width with time in all cases. There are slight fluctuations from one reading to the next and this is in part due to human error in measuring. The quarter points were measured and averaged, but the exact spot was not measured every time and may have caused slight fluctuations in the readings. Figure 4.28 shows that the NC mixture had by far the largest crack widths, which was expected. HPC-SRA had the smallest crack widths and HPC-L cracked the latest. HPC cracked at the same time as NC but had substantially smaller crack widths, which can be seen in Figure 4.29. Cracks did not appear on OLMC throughout the 90 days of recording crack data.

112

0.60 0.50 Crack Width (mm) 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 20 40 60 80 100 Time (Days)
NC HPC HPC-SRA HPC-L Log. (NC) Log. (HPC) Log. (HPC-L) Log. (HPC-SRA)

Figure 4.28

Comparison of Crack Data for all Mixtures

0.6 0.52 Average Crack Width (mm) 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 NC HPC HPC-SRA HPC-L

0.13

0.09

0.13

0 OLMC

Figure 4.29

Average Crack Widths after 75 Days of Drying

113

Table 4.8 presents the pertinent crack data for all mixtures, including the day the crack appeared, crack width range, crack length and number of cracks in a given ring specimen. HPC had two cracks on each specimen whereas the rest of the mixtures had one crack on each specimen. This may be due to the fact that HPC has higher shrinkage than all the mixtures with the exception of NC, but the creep of HPC was lower than NC when measured as specific creep per unit stress. HPC was more brittle when compared with the ACI 363 tensile strength and compressive strength relationship. Overall, HPC has all the characteristics for a higher cracking tendency. No cracks appeared on the OLMC mixture throughout the entire testing regimen. OLMC contained a high quantity of latex, which reduced the brittleness of the matrix. Also, the relatively lower moisture loss in OLMC may have helped to prevent cracking due to shrinkage. The creep of OLMC was not measured, however it is well known that latex modified concrete has higher creep than plain concrete because polymeric latex forms a low modulus phase with the polymer cement concrete (Blaga and Beaudoin 1985). Higher creep helped to relax the shrinkage strain and thus prevent cracking. In HPC-L, the quantity of latex was not enough to prevent cracking, but the first crack did appear after 60 days, which was the latest crack appearance among the cracked mixtures.

114

Table 4.8
MIXTURE TYPE Specimen Number Day of Crack Appearance Number of Cracks Crack Width Range (mm) Max Crack Length (cm) NC NC HPC

Crack Data for All Mixtures


HPC HPC-SRA HPC-SRA HPC-L HPC-L OLMC OLMC

1 18 1

2 18 1

1 18 2

2 27 2

1 33 1

2 -

1 60 1 0.10 - 0.16 15.25

2 -

1 -

2 -

0.43 - 0.63 0.27 - 0.47 0.07 - 0.16 0.07 - 0.17 0.02 - 0.11 15.25 15.25 15.25 16.50 19.00

NOTE: 1. Only vertical cracks were monitored. 2. For HPC, the extreme crack width ranges for the two cracks for each specimen were taken. 3. The average crack length of the two cracks for each HPC specimen was taken.

115

Results of research on the cracking tendencies of concrete mixtures using the ring test method will be discussed and compared with the results from this experimental study. Wiegrink et al. (1996) found that even though high strength concrete had higher tensile strength than normal strength concrete, the cracking performance of high strength concrete was substantially worst. Cracks formed earlier in the high strength concrete and crack widths were wider. As the amount of silica fume in the mixture increased, so did the maximum crack width. Wiegrink et al. (1996) gave reasons for this, which included lower specific creep, higher modulus of elasticity and lower interlock along crack faces for high strength concrete. Li et al. (1999) also found that the addition of silica fume increased the crack width when compared to a control mixture with no silica fume. The onset of the initial crack was also earlier. This was actually not the case in this study, the NC cracked first and had the largest crack width when compared to the HPC mixtures. Shah et al. (1992 and 1996) found that the use of SRA delayed the onset of cracking and reduced the overall crack width in ring specimens under restrained shrinkage. This was the case in the present study; the HPC-SRA mixture had the smallest crack width and cracked after the HPC mixture. To investigate the formation of cracks in the specimens, the estimated direct tensile strength is compared with the circumferential stress at different ages to conclude whether a crack should have formed or not. This process can only be done with NC and HPC since these were the only mixtures for which creep tests were performed. Table 4.9 presents the relevant values needed in estimating both the direct tensile strength and the

116

circumferential stress. Notes below the table show the origins of each value and how values were calculated. Table 4.9 shows that for concrete age 7 days, when the circumferential or maximum tensile stress is less than the estimated direct tensile strength no crack should form, and this held true, with no cracks present in NC or HPC at 7 days. Likewise, for 28 days, when the maximum tensile stress is greater than the estimated direct tensile strength, a crack should have formed and this again held true, with cracks present in NC and HPC at 28 days. This shows that the development of cracks in NC and HPC due to restrained shrinkage is governed by the combined influence of free shrinkage, creep modulus of elasticity and tensile strength. This observation is however based on some assumptions and estimated properties determined from standard published information.

117

Table 4.9 Age (Days) (1) 7 Mixture Type (2) NC HPC 28 NC HPC fc (psi) (3) 4230 5175 6100 7535

Ring Specimen Cracking Predictions Based on Estimated Stress-Strain Parameters fsp (psi) (4) 405 435 580 695 Estimated ft (psi) (5) 328 352 470 563 Estimated Ec*106 (psi) (6) 3.41 3.55 4.88 5.67 Shrinkage Strain ( ) (7) 255 268 578 545 Creep Strain () (8) 250 243 394 406 Difference of Strain () (9) 5 25 184 139 p (psi) (10) 4 22.5 225.5 198 (psi) (11) 15<328 No Crack 86<352 No Crack 864>470 Crack 759>563 Crack

NOTES: (3) fc = Compressive Strength (4) fsp = Split Tensile Strength (5) ft = Direct Tensile Strength ft was estimated using 0.81ft (Avran et al. 1981) (6) Ec = Modulus of Elasticity Knowing

E c = 57000 f

'

(ACI 318) and

f ' sp = m f ' c from Section 4.3, Ec was calculated using Ec =

57000 ' f sp m

(7) Shrinkage strain was calculated using equations from Figures 4.18 and 4.19 (8) Creep strain was taken from Figure 4.23 (10) p = Radial Pressure on Ring p was calculated using the following elastic stress analysis equation p =

Ec (Shah et al. 1998) 2 2 (re + ri ) (re ri ) +


2 2

Where: re = External Radius, ri = Internal Radius and = Poissons Ratio ranging between 0.18 and 0.20 (11) = Circumferential Stress was calculated using

(re ri + 1) p (Shah et al. 1998) 2 2 re ri 1

118

4.7 Rapid Chloride Permeability Test Results

The rapid chloride permeability test was performed on disk specimens cured between 28 to 35 days according to ASTM C 1202 and AASHTO C 277 Standards. Appendix C, Tables C.1 through C.5 contain the complete data. Table 4.10 presents Coulomb values for each mixture over the test duration of 6 hours. The number of Coulombs passed after 6 hours for each mixture along with the ASTM rating for the Coulomb value is given in Table 4.11. Graphs of the cumulative data can be found in Figure 4.30 and a bar graph of the total amount of charge passed for comparison between mixtures is shown in Figure 4.31.

Table 4.10 TIME (Minutes) 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 NC 0 259 548 871 1230 1626 2059 2531 3038 3595 4187 4815 5477

Charge Passed (Coulombs) in RCPT for All Mixtures CHARGE PASSED (Coulombs) HPC 0 100 204 312 424 542 665 792 922 1056 1194 1337 1483 119 HPC-SRA 0 82 167 253 342 434 527 621 718 817 917 1020 1124 HPC-L 0 29 58 88 118 148 179 210 241 272 303 335 367 OLMC 0 62 127 191 258 325 394 463 534 605 677 749 822

6000 Charge Passed (Coulombs) 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 100 200 Time (Minutes) 300 400 NC HPC HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC

Figure 4.30
6000

Charge Passed in RCPT for All Mixtures

Charge Passed (Coulombs )

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

5477

1483
NC HPC

1124
HPC-SRA

367
HPC-L

822
OLMC

Mixture Type Figure 4.31 Comparison of Chloride Permeability among Mixtures

120

Table 4.11 MIX TYPE NC HPC HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC

Total Charge Passed with ASTM Rating for All Mixtures CHARGE PASSED (Coulombs) 5477 1483 1124 367 822 ASTM RATING High (>4000) Low (1000-2000) Low (1000-2000) Very Low (100-1000) Very Low (100-1000)

As expected, NC had the highest permeability of all the mixtures with 5477 coulombs. HPC and HPC-SRA were both just over 1000 coulombs. The latex mixtures had the lowest chloride permeability showing that using latex does decrease the permeability of concrete. Lower permeability is in fact a characteristic of latex concrete. ASTM has ratings for different Coulomb ranges in concrete mixtures and the ratings for the mixtures used in this study are given in Table 4.11. Data presented in a paper by Suprenant (1991) shows the higher the w/c ratio, the greater the coulomb value for the RCPT. This pattern holds true in this study. NC, with the highest w/c ratio of 0.50, had the highest Coulomb value of 5477, followed by HPC and HPC-SRA with a w/c ratio of 0.40 and Coulomb values 1483 and 1124 respectively. Finally, HPC-L and OLMC, with the lowest w/c ratio of 0.35, had the lowest Coulomb values of 367 and 822 respectively. The paper by Suprenant (1991) also graphically shows that the chloride permeability of concrete decreases with the use of silica fume. This is evident in the NC mix, which has by far the highest coulomb value and contains

121

no silica fume. HPC, HPC-SRA and HPC-L all contain silica fume and decreased chloride permeability in relation to NC. A comparison of the latex mixtures shows that OLMC has greater chloride permeability with no silica fume and HPC-L has smaller chloride permeability with silica fume. Kuhlmann (1988) stated in his study using styrene-butadiene latex in concrete overlays, that latex modified concrete tends to have chloride permeability under 1000 coulombs. This is supported in the present study. Sujjavanich and Lundy (1998) give the reason for improved permeability in latex concrete. The latex polymer contains small, spherical, copolymer particles that vary in size from about 0.5 to 5.0 mm in diameter. The emulsion polymerization of latex modifies the structure system of the concrete through cement hydration and film formation. The variation in size of the polymer particles results in an effective filling of voids and a closely packed system of a continuous film on the surface of the cement gelunhydrated cement particle mixture. This film retains internal moisture, enhances curing and bridges some capillary pores and micro-cracks resulting in improved tensile strength, flexural strength and permeability. Now that all the data has been presented and discussed in relation to other findings, Chapter 5 will summarize the results and give suggestions for future research.

122

Chapter 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 Introduction

This chapter will summarize the test results presented in Chapter 4, present a cost analysis and make conclusions on the entire study. Furthermore, ideas for future research will be presented.

5.2 Summary of Results

In fresh concrete, all the mixtures had slumps within the acceptable range. Slump was measured to ascertain whether the concrete could be placed, vibrated and compacted with ease. The measured air content from each mixture was adequate to resist freezethaw cycles. Unit weight values showed that all the mixtures were concrete of normal weight. The temperature measurements indicated there would be no problems during placement, and the hydration procedure would not be affected. The compressive strengths of all the high performance concrete mixtures, disregarding NC, were high enough to be accepted as bridge deck concrete. Some loss of strength was notice for HPC-SRA due to possible interference of the SRA with the hydration process. Both the latex mixtures exhibited a high rate of strength gain from 3days to 28-days.

123

The split tensile strength and compressive strength relationship showed that both latex mixtures were less brittle and NC, HPC, and HPC-SRA were more brittle when compared to the standard ACI equation for concretes with a compressive strength in the range from 3,000 psi to 12,000 psi. The slope of the relationships for each mixture varied and therefore no general equation could be stated. The free shrinkage for NC and HPC was consistent with moisture loss. However, in HPC-SRA, HPC-L and OLMC the behavior changed. In HPC-SRA, the moisture loss was greater compared to free shrinkage. This may be due to the influence of SRA, which did not allow shrinkage to occur in spite of drying. On the other hand, there was higher shrinkage compared to moisture loss for both the latex mixtures. Latex could retain the moisture effectively, but was not as capable of preventing shrinkage. At the end of 75 days of observation, HPC-SRA had undergone the lowest magnitude of free shrinkage, while NC had the highest free shrinkage value, as expected. Latex admixtures could also control the high free shrinkage values to a certain extent. These conclusions can be made since the aggregate-paste ratio was kept constant and the difference in the values of free shrinkage observed was solely due to the influence of other ingredients such as pozzolanic materials, SRA and latex. When compared with standard models, it was found that predicted equations based on experimental results of both NC and HPC closely resembled ACI 209 and the work by Hou et al. (2001). But the experimental equation for HPC-SRA was distinctly different from both ACI 209 and Hou et al. (2001). For HPC-L and OLMC the experimental equations were close to Hou et al. (2001), yet veered from the ACI 209 prediction. This suggests that admixtures like SRA and latex have a strong influence on

124

shrinkage prediction equations, which were not taken into consideration by ACI 209 and Hou et al. (2001). Creep tests were performed on only two mixtures due to the constraints of time. Results showed that specific creep (strains/psi) of HPC was lower than NC throughout the duration of this study, which justifies the lower stress-relaxation capacity of HPC. Among the mixtures, NC had the first crack appearance and widest crack width in both specimens. Concrete with latex exhibited a lower tendency of cracking. Specifically, no cracks appeared within 75 days for OLMC. The cracking tendency of the mixtures was governed by various mechanical properties of concrete such as free shrinkage, creep, tensile strength and modulus of elasticity. NC had by far the highest chloride permeability. All other mixtures had a low or very low ASTM rating. Both latex mixtures had very low permeability, HPC-L being the lowest due to combined effect of silica fume and latex. The test results from the compressive strength, split tensile strength, free shrinkage, cracking monitoring and RCPT tests are compared for all the concrete mixtures. The creep test is not included due to the lack of data for all mixtures, as previously mentioned. The various tests are weighted in their importance to the cracking tendencies in concrete. The more important tests are weighted with a three, the moderately important tests are weighted with a two and the least important tests are weighted with a one. The concrete mixtures are ranked from one to five in terms of their performance, one being the worst performance and five being the best performance on a given test. Table 5.1 summarizes the different concrete tests and the rankings of each concrete mixture. The table also shows the weight given to each test. Table 5.2 shows

125

the total points for each mixture, the higher the score the better the overall performance of the concrete mixture. Total points for each mixture were calculated as follows:

TotalPo int s = ( RankingNumber )(Weight )

[5.1]

Table 5.1

Ranking of the Concrete Mixtures for Various Tests


TYPE OF TEST

MIXTURE Appearance Width of TYPE of Crack Crack

Free Shrinkage

Tensile Strength

RCPT

Compressive Strength

NC HPC HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 4 3 5

1 2 5 4 3

1 3 2 5 4

1 2 3 5 4

1 5 2 4 3

Weight

NOTES: 1. For Ranking: 1 = Worst Performance, 5 = Best Performance 2. For Weight: 1 = Least Important Tested Property, 3 = Most Important Tested Property

Looking at Table 5.1 one can see that NC had the poorest ranking among all of the mixtures, which was expected. NC scored the lowest in all categories of testing and had the lowest overall score with a 14 as shown in Table 5.2. HPC had the greatest compressive strength, but lacked in all other tests and therefore was next to last in the overall standings with score of 33. The latex concrete mixtures were ranked one and two in the standings and performed outstanding in cracking tendency, tensile strength and

126

RCP. The exceptional performance in the more important tests yielded the highest overall ranking for HPC-L and OLMC with scores of 57 and 58 respectively. HPC-SRA had excellent results in the free shrinkage, but came up short in the remaining tests, which placed HPC-SRA in the middle of all the mixtures with an overall score of 48.

Table 5.2 MIXTURE TYPE NC HPC HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC

Total Points Ranking for All Mixtures TOTAL POINTS (out of a possible 70) 14 33 48 57 58

5.3 Cost Analysis

Now that the superior mixtures have been identified, a cost analysis will give an idea of the expense for each mixture. Tables 5.3 lists the materials used in the concrete mixtures, the companies who supplied them and the price per unit quoted by the suppliers. Table 5.4 through 5.8 lists the amount of material used for 1 yd3 of concrete, the unit cost and the total cost for the amount of material used in 1 yd3 of concrete. The bottom of each table sums up the total cost for all materials to make 1 yd3 of concrete. Finally, Table 5.9 presents the total costs for 1 yd3 of concrete for each mixture as a comparison.

127

Table 5.3 MATERIAL Cement Fly Ash Silica Fume Water Gravel Sand HRWRA AEA SRA Latex Defoamer

Price per Unit for all Materials and Suppliers SUPPLY COMPANY Arrow Concrete Co. Arrow Concrete Co. Master Builders Morgantown Utility Board Hoy Redi Mix Co. Arrow Concrete Co. Master Builders Master Builders Master Builders Dow Corning Dow Chemical COST/UNIT $125.00/ton $70.00/ton $0.45/lb $1.47/1000 gal $9.00/ton $19.00/ton $9.35/gal $5.00/gal $26.00/gal $7.04/gal $4.30/lb

Table 5.4 AMOUNT OF MATERIAL Cement (lb) Water (lb) Gravel (lb) Sand (lb) HRWRA (ml) AEA (ml)

Cost Analysis for NC UNIT COST (lb or ml) $0.0625 $0.0015 $0.0045 $0.0095 $0.0025 $0.0013 TOTAL TOTAL COST/ 1 YD3 $35.50 $0.43 $7.88 $11.46 $2.50 $0.85 $58.61

MATERIAL FOR 1 YD3 568 284 1750 1206 1000 655

128

Table 5.5 AMOUNT OF MATERIAL Cement (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Silica Fume (lb) Water (lb) Gravel (lb) Sand (lb) HRWRA (ml) AEA (ml)

Cost Analysis for HPC COST/UNIT (lb or ml) $0.0625 $0.0350 $0.4500 $0.0015 $0.0045 $0.0095 $0.0025 $0.0013 TOTAL TOTAL COST/ 1 YD3 $29.38 $4.34 $13.50 $0.38 $7.88 $11.46 $7.25 $0.85 $75.02

MATERIAL FOR 1 YD3 470 124 30 250 1750 1206 2900 650

Table 5.6

Cost Analysis for HPC-SRA COST/UNIT (lb or ml) $0.0625 $0.0350 $0.4500 $0.0015 $0.0045 $0.0095 $0.0025 $0.0013 $0.0069 TOTAL TOTAL COST/ 1 YD3 $29.38 $4.34 $13.50 $0.38 $7.88 $11.46 $6.75 $1.17 $39.85 $114.69

AMOUNT OF MATERIAL Cement (lb) Fly Ash (lb) Silica Fume (lb) Water (lb) Gravel (lb) Sand (lb) HRWRA (ml) AEA (ml) SRA (ml) MATERIAL FOR 1 YD3 470 124 30 250 1750 1206 2700 900 5775

129

Table 5.7

Cost Analysis for HPC-L COST/UNIT (lb or ml) $0.0625 $0.4500 $0.0015 $0.0045 $0.0095 $0.0025 $0.8282 TOTAL TOTAL COST/ 1 YD3 $41.13 $15.75 $0.25 $7.88 $11.46 $5.00 $119.59 $201.05

AMOUNT OF MATERIAL Cement (lb) Silica Fume (lb) Water (lb) Gravel (lb) Sand (lb) HRWRA (ml) Latex (lb) MATERIAL FOR 1 YD3 658 35 165 1750 1206 2000 144.4

Table 5.8 AMOUNT OF MATERIAL Cement (lb) Water (lb) Gravel (lb) Sand (lb) Latex (lb) Defoamer (ml)

Cost Analysis for OLMC COST/UNIT (lb or ml) $0.0625 $0.0015 $0.0045 $0.0095 $0.8282 $0.0106 TOTAL TOTAL COST/ 1 YD3 $43.75 $0.20 $5.43 $16.63 $176.08 $9.83 $251.91

MATERIAL FOR 1 YD3 700 134.4 1206 1750 212.6 927

130

Table 5.9 MIXTURE TYPE NC HPC HPC-SRA HPC-L OLMC

Price Comparisons for All Mixtures TOTAL COST ($) $58.61 $75.02 $114.69 $201.05 $251.91

It can be seen in Table 5.9 that NC is the cheapest mixture to produce, but it comes with the poorest performance. The admixtures, such as SRA, latex and defoamer are costly, but have significant benefits in the performance and longevity of a concrete mixture as shown in this research program. The initial cost of a concrete using SRA or latex would be saved in the decrease in maintenance and up keep throughout the lifespan of the concrete. In the long run, the initial cost of a higher quality concrete would significantly out weigh the maintenance cost of a poorer quality concrete. The costs given in Table 5.9 are for comparison purposes only and not as an indication of actual market value.

5.4 Conclusions

High performance concrete currently used by the WVDOT-DOH for bridge decks, similar to class H concrete, has many limitations due to the high shrinkage, low creep, high brittleness and higher proneness to cracks, in spite of its high compressive

131

strength and low chloride permeability. The addition of SRA reduced shrinkage significantly, but the addition of latex could reduce the cracking tendencies more effectively. The addition of latex also reduced the chloride permeability considerably. The high slump and medium concrete temperature of HPC-L should facilitate an easy pour in a relatively warm climate. The use of latex will also reduce the necessity of continuous moist curing as needed for other high performance concretes without latex. The higher moisture retention capacity will decrease self-desiccation, reducing the chance of plastic, autogenous and drying shrinkage. The application of OLMC as an overlay is recommended because of its low tendency for cracking and its very low permeability. The increase in initial cost of HPC-L, due to addition of latex, may be compensated for by its decreased curing expenses and long term durability as predicted from its very low cracking tendency and permeability. As a low-cost substitute, HPCSRA may be used as bridge deck concrete with less cracking tendency and reasonably low permeability. However, a long-term durability study under various other environmental conditions is needed to make any final recommendations.

5.4 Suggestions for Future Research

In order to fully understand the cracking tendencies of the proposed mixtures in this study program, more research is necessary. Below is a list of suggested future research in the same area that will help to better understand the cracking and shrinkage characteristics of the proposed mixtures:

To perform creep tests on all mixtures

132

To determine the modulus of elasticity and direct tensile strength for each mixture To study the influence of admixtures on shrinkage and creep models with variations in dosage

To measure the strain during restrained shrinkage of ring specimens To study the early age shrinkage (shrinkage for the first 24 hours) To study the long term durability of HPC-SRA, HPC-L and OLMC mixtures To devise other restrained shrinkage test methods to simulate better actual bridgedeck behavior

To perform batching studies at concrete plants and field implementation studies to evaluate practicality and total cost

133

References
1. AASHTO M 80-87, Course Aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. 17th Edition, Washington D.C.: AASHTO, 1995. 64-66. 2. AASHTO M 85-93, Portland Cement. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. 17th Edition, Washington D.C.: AASHTO, 1995. 71-75. 3. AASHTO M 154-89, Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. 17th Edition, Washington D.C.: AASHTO, 1995. 139-141. 4. AASHTO M 194-94, Chemical Admixtures for Concrete. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. 17th Edition, Washington D.C.: AASHTO, 1995. 251-258. 5. AASHTO M 295-94, Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Portland Cement Concrete. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. 17th Edition, Washington D.C.: AASHTO, 1995. 621-623. 6. AASHTO M 307-91, Microsilica for Use in Concrete and Mortar. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. 17th Edition, Washington D.C.: AASHTO, 1995. 647-648. 7. AASHTO T 22-92, Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. 17th Edition, Washington D.C.: AASHTO, 1995. 11-17.

134

8. AASHTO T 119-93, Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. 17th Edition, Washington D.C.: AASHTO, 1995. 194-195. 9. AASHTO T 121-86, Weight per Cubic Foot, Yield, and Air Content of Concrete. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. 17th Edition, Washington D.C.: AASHTO, 1995. 196-198. 10. AASHTO T 152-93, Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. 17th Edition, Washington D.C.: AASHTO, 1995. 255-262. 11. AASHTO T 160-93, Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic Cement Mortar and Concrete. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. 17th Edition, Washington D.C.: AASHTO, 1995. 196-198. 12. AASHTO T 198-93, Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. 17th Edition, Washington D.C.: AASHTO, 1995. 389-391. 13. AASHTO T 259-80, Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. 20th Edition, Washington D.C.: AASHTO, 2000. 896-897. 14. AASHTO T 277-93, Electrical Indication of Concretes Ability to resist Chloride Ion Penetration. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. 17th Edition, Washington D.C.: AASHTO, 1995. 196-198.

135

15. American Concrete Institute (ACI). Manual of Concrete Practice Part 1: Materials and General Properties of Concrete. Detroit: ACI, 1997. 16. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) C 33-99a. Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol 04.02 Concrete and Aggregates. Philadelphia: ASTM, 2000. 10-17. 17. ASTM C 39-99. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol 04.02 Concrete and Aggregates. Philadelphia: ASTM, 2000. 18-22. 18. ASTM C 138-92. Standard Test Method for unit Weight, Yield and Air Content of Concrete. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol 04.02 Concrete and Aggregates. Philadelphia: ASTM, 2000. 83-85. 19. ASTM C 143-98. Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol 04.02 Concrete and Aggregates. Philadelphia: ASTM, 2000. 88-90. 20. ASTM C 157-99. Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic-Cement Mortar and Concrete. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol 04.02 Concrete and Aggregates. Philadelphia: ASTM, 2000. 96-102. 21. ASTM C 192-98. Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol 04.02 Concrete and Aggregates. Philadelphia: ASTM, 2000. 113-120. 22. ASTM C 231-97. Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol 04.02 Concrete and Aggregates. Philadelphia: ASTM, 2000. 132-139.

136

23. ASTM C 260-00. Standard Specification for Air-Entraining Admixture for Concrete. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol 04.02 Concrete and Aggregates. Philadelphia: ASTM, 2000. 151-153. 24. ASTM C 494-99a. Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol 04.02 Concrete and Aggregates. Philadelphia: ASTM, 2000. 256-264. 25. ASTM C 496-96. Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol 04.02 Concrete and Aggregates. Philadelphia: ASTM, 2000. 286-271. 26. ASTM C 512-87. Standard Test Method for Creep of Concrete in Compression. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol 04.02 Concrete and Aggregates. Philadelphia: ASTM, 2000. 275-278. 27. ASTM C 618-99. Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use as a mineral Admixture in Portland Cement Concrete. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol 04.02 Concrete and Aggregates. Philadelphia: ASTM, 2000. 305-308. 28. ASTM C 1064-99. Standard Test Method for Temperature of Freshly Mixed Portland Cement Concrete. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol 04.02 Concrete and Aggregates. Philadelphia: ASTM, 2000. 546-547. 29. ASTM C 1202-97. Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concretes Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol 04.02 Concrete and Aggregates. Philadelphia: ASTM, 2000. 639-644.

137

30. ASTM C 1240-00. Standard Specification for Use of Silica Fume as a Mineral Admixture in Hydraulic Cement Concrete, Mortar and Grout. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol 04.02 Concrete and Aggregates. Philadelphia: ASTM, 2000. 652-657. 31. Avran, C., I. Facaoaru, I Filimon, O. Mirsu and I. Tertea. Concrete Strength and Strains. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., 1981. 252. 32. Blaga, A. and Beaudoin, J. J. Ploymer Modified Concrete. Canadian Building Digest 241, National Research Council, Canada (1985) 33. Bloom, Ronit and Arnon Bentur. Free and Restrained Shrinkage of Normal and High-Strength Concretes. ACI Materials Journal 93(2) (1995): 211-217. 34. Chen, Pu-Woei and D. D. L. Chung. A Comparative Study of Concretes Reinforced with Carbon, Polyethylene, and Steel Fibers and Their Improvement by Latex Addition. ACI Materials Journal 93(2) (1996): 129-133. 35. Dow Chemical. Suggested Specifications Latex Modified Concrete Protection for new Parking Structures. December 1994. Form No. 161-1258-1204 AMS. 36. Dubois, T. and D. Peabody. Review of Chloride Permeability Test Results.

Transportation Research Division Bureau of Planning, Research & Community Services. Problem Solving #97-15. April 1998.
37. Grzybowski, Miroslaw and Surendra P. Shah. Shrinkage of Fiber Reinforced Concrete. ACI Materials Journal 87(2) (1990): 138-148. 38. Hooton, R. D. Problem Inherent in Permeability Measurement. Advances in Cement Manufacture and Use. Ed. E. Gartener. New York: Engineering Foundation, 1998. 143-154.

138

39. Hou, Xiaoming Sharon, Nabil Al-Omaishi and Maher K. Tadros. Creep, Shrinkage, and Modulus of Elasticity of High-Performance Concrete. ACI

Materials Journal 98(6) (2001): 440-449.


40. Krauss, Paul D. and Ernest A. Rogalla. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 380: Transverse Cracking in Newly Constructed Bridge Decks. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996. 41. Kolver, K. Testing Systems for Determining the Mechanical Behavior of Early Age Concrete Under Restrained and Free Uniaxial Shrinkage. Materials and

Structures 27(170) (1994): 324-330.


42. Kuhlmann, L. A. Using Styrene-Butadiene Latex in Concrete Overlays.

Transportation Research Record (1204) (1988): 52-58.


43. Lange, D.A., E. J. Barenberg, S. P. Shah and S. A. Altoubat. Fiber Reinforced Concrete for High Performance Airport Pavement. Center of Excellence for Airport Pavement Research Semi-Annual Report. University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Northwestern University. May 20, 1997. 44. Li, Zongjin, Meng Qi, Zailiang Li and Baoguo Ma. Crack Width of HighPerformance Concrete Due to Restrained Shrinkage. Journal of Materials in

Civil Engineering 11(3) (1999): 214-223.


45. Mobasher, B. and T. M. Mitchell. Laboratory Experience with the Rapid Chloride Permeability Test. Symposium-108 Permeability of Concrete. Detroit: ACI, 1998. 117-144. 46. Myers, John J., Wissam E. Touma and Ramon L. Carrasquillo. Permeability of High Performance Concrete: Rapid Chloride Ion Test vs. Chloride Ponding Test.

139

Proceedings of the PCI/FHWA International Symposium on High Performance Concrete. New Orleans, 1997. 268-282.
47. Neville, A. M. Properties of Concrete. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997. 48. Neville, Adam M. and Bernard L. Meyers. Creep of Concrete: Influencing Factors and Prediction. Proceedings of the Symposium on Creep of Concrete. Detroit: ACI, 1964. 1-33. 49. Nmai, Charles K., Rokuro Tomita, Fumiaki Hondo and Julie Buffenbarger. Shrinkage-Reducing Admixtures. Concrete International 20(4) (1998): 31-37. 50. Parilee, A.M., M. Buil and J.J. Serrano. Effect of Fiber Addition on the Autogeneous Shrinkage of Silica Fume Concrete. ACI Materials Journal 86(2) (1988): 139-144. 51. Persson, B. Experimental Studies on Shrinkage of High Performance Concrete.

Cement and Concrete Research 28(7) (1998): 1023-1036.


52. Shah, Surendra P., Chengsheng Ouyang, Shashidhara Marikunte, Wei Yang and Emilie Becq-Giraudon. A Method to Predict Shrinkage Cracking of Concrete.

ACI Materials Journal 95(4) (1998): 339-345.


53. Shah, Surendra P., Sh. Marikunte, W. Yang and C. Aldea. Control of Cracking with Shrinkage-Reducing Admixtures. Transportation Research Record (1574) (1996): 25-36. 54. Shah, S. P., M. E. Karaguler and M. Sarigaphuti. Effects of Shrinkage-Reducing Admixtures on Restrained Shrinkage Cracking of Concrete. ACI Materials

Journal 89(3) (1992): 289-295.

140

55. Sprinkel, Michael M. High Early Strength Latex-Modified Concrete Overlay.

Transportation Research Record (1204) (1988): 42-51.


56. Sujjavanich, Suvimoml and James R. Lundy. Development of Strength and Fracture Properties of Styrene-Butadiene Copolymer Latex-Modified Concrete.

ACI Materials Journal 95(2) (1998): 131-143.


57. Suprenant, Bruce A. Testing for Chloride Permeability of Concrete. Concrete

Construction July (1991): 531-533.


58. Weiss, W. Jason and Surendra P. Shah, Recent Trends to Reduce Shrinkage Cracking in Concrete Pavements, Aircraft/Pavement Technology: In the Midst of Change. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1997. 217-228. 59. Weiss, W. Jason, Wei Yang and Surendra P. Shah. Shrinkage Cracking of Restrained Concrete Slabs. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 124(7) (1998): 765-774. 60. Wiegrink, Karl, Shashidhara Marikunte and Surendra P. Shah. Shrinkage Cracking of High-Strength Concrete. ACI Materials Journal 93(5) (1996): 409415. 61. Zang, Wenbo. Exploratory Study on High Performance Concrete for Bridge Decks in West Virginia. Masters Thesis, West Virginia University (2001).

141

APPENDIX A Compressive Strength and Split Tensile Strength Test Results

142

Table A.1 CURING TIME (Days) 3 7 28

NC Batch 1 Compressive Strength Results (Units: psi) COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH STANDARD 3130 4230 6100 83 166 23

Specimen 1 3064 4178 6088

Specimen 2 3104 4098 6088

Specimen 3 AVERAGE DEVIATION 3223 4417 6127

Table A.2 CURING TIME (Days) 3 7 28

NC Batch 2 Compressive Strength Results (Units: psi) COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH STANDARD 3530 4830 6700 406 219 1048

Specimen 1 3820 4814 7560

Specimen 2 3700 5053 5531

Specimen 3 AVERAGE DEVIATION 3064 4615 7003

Table A.3 CURING TIME (Days) 3 7 28

HPC Batch 1 Compressive Strength Results (Units: psi) COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH STANDARD 4245 5175 7535 46 69 140

Specimen 1 4297 5252 7520

Specimen 2 4218 5133 7401

Specimen 3 AVERAGE DEVIATION 4218 5133 7679

Table A.4 CURING TIME (Days) 3 7 28

HPC Batch 2 Compressive Strength Results (Units: psi) COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH STANDARD

Specimen 1 3621 6048 8594

Specimen 2 4377 5531 8833

Specimen 3 AVERAGE DEVIATION 4456 5809 8435 4150 5795 8620 461 259 200

143

Table A.5 CURING TIME (Days) 3 7 28

HPC-SRA Batch 1 Compressive Strength Results (Units: psi) COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Specimen 1 3422 4496 6486 Specimen 2 3382 4456 6446 STANDARD

Specimen 3 AVERAGE DEVIATION 3342 4496 6565 3380 4485 6500 40 23 61

Table A.6 CURING TIME (Days) 3 7 28

HPC-SRA Batch 2 Compressive Strength Results (Units: psi) COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Specimen 1 3581 4655 7958 Specimen 2 3501 4894 7281 3501 4854 7639 3530 4800 7625 STANDARD 46 128 338

Specimen 3 AVERAGE DEVIATION

Table A.7 CURING TIME (Days) 3 7 28

HPC-L Batch 1 Compressive Strength Results (Units: psi) COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Specimen 1 4536 5491 6923 Specimen 2 4456 5531 7003 4496 5650 6963 4495 5560 6965 STANDARD 40 83 40

Specimen 3 AVERAGE DEVIATION

Table A.8 CURING TIME (Days) 3 7 28

HPC-L Batch 2 Compressive Strength Results (Units: psi) COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Specimen 1 4814 5650 7838 Specimen 2 4417 5769 7679 4536 6008 7958 4590 5810 7825 STANDARD 204 182 140

Specimen 3 AVERAGE DEVIATION

144

Table A.9 CURING TIME (Days) 3 7 28

OLMC Batch 1 Compressive Strength Results (Units: psi) COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Specimen 1 4417 5133 6844 Specimen 2 4377 5133 7043 Specimen 3 4218 5292 6963 Average 4340 5185 6950 Standard Deviation 105 92 100

Table A.10 CURING TIME (Days) 3 7 28

OLMC Batch 2 Compressive Strength Results (Units: psi) COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Standard Average 4655 5650 7665 Deviation 242 105 100

Specimen 1 4775 5531 7560

Specimen 2 4814 5690 7759

Specimen 3 4377 5730 7679

Table A.11 CURING TIME (Days) 3 7 28

NC Split Tensile Strength Results (Units: psi) STANDARD AVERAGE 355 405 580 DEVIATION 57 63 26

SPLIT TENSILE STRENGTH Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 308 368 607 338 477 557 418 368 567

Table A.12 CURING TIME (Days) 3 7 28

HPC Split Tensile Strength Results (Units: psi) STANDARD AVERAGE 410 435 695 DEVIATION 66 11 20

SPLIT TENSILE STRENGTH Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 468 428 676 428 428 716 338 448 696

145

Table A.13 CURING TIME (Days) 3 7 28

HPC-SRA Split Tensile Strength Results (Units: psi) SPLIT TENSILE STRENGTH STANDARD AVERAGE 380 400 605 DEVIATION 20 32 41

Specimen 1 398 438 617

Specimen 2 378 388 557

Specimen 3 358 378 637

Table A.14 CURING TIME (Days) 3 7 28

HPC-L Split Tensile Strength Results (Units: psi) STANDARD AVERAGE 470 550 785 DEVIATION 72 108 61

SPLIT TENSILE STRENGTH Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 517 637 796 507 577 716 388 428 836

Table A.15 CURING TIME (Days) 3 7 28

OLMC Split Tensile Strength Results (Units: psi) STANDARD AVERAGE 480 575 710 DEVIATION 30 41 41

SPLIT TENSILE STRENGTH Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 487 607 696 507 587 676 448 527 756

146

APPENDIX B Length Change Measurement Test Results

147

Table B.1 DRYING TIME (Days) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90

NC Free Shrinkage at Various Ages STANDARD AVERAGE (Strains) 0 123 240 320 405 485 541 579 595 560 576 563 592 621 643 643 648 635 675 691 672 648 699 720 728 725 728 699 672 661 635 DEVIATION (Strains) 0 18 8 21 20 17 23 12 5 21 8 23 14 18 9 17 21 17 17 12 16 8 18 16 14 18 16 24 16 20 12

FREE SHRINKAGE Specimen 1 (Strains) 0 144 248 344 424 504 568 592 600 536 584 576 600 632 648 648 656 648 680 688 672 656 720 720 736 736 728 704 672 664 632 Specimen 2 (Strains) 0 112 232 304 384 472 528 576 592 576 576 576 600 632 648 656 664 640 688 704 688 640 688 736 736 736 744 720 688 680 648 Specimen 3 (Strains) 0 112 240 312 408 480 528 568 592 568 568 536 576 600 632 624 624 616 656 680 656 648 688 704 712 704 712 672 656 640 624

148

Table B.2 DRYING TIME (Days) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 (lb) 8.60 8.40 8.35 8.33 8.33 8.32 8.32 8.31 8.29 8.29 8.29 8.28 8.29 8.28 8.28 8.27 8.27 8.26 8.27 8.27 8.26 8.26 8.26 8.25 8.26 8.26 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.24

NC Weight Loss at Various Ages AVERAGE WEIGHT (lb) 8.62 8.42 8.38 8.36 8.35 8.34 8.34 8.33 8.32 8.32 8.31 8.31 8.31 8.30 8.30 8.29 8.29 8.28 8.29 8.29 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.27 8.28 8.27 (lb) 8.60 8.39 8.37 8.35 8.33 8.32 8.32 8.31 8.30 8.31 8.29 8.29 8.29 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.26 8.26 8.27 8.26 8.26 8.26 8.26 8.26 8.26 8.26 8.26 8.25 8.26 8.25 AVERAGE WEIGHT LOSS % 0.00 2.28 2.75 3.02 3.17 3.21 3.29 3.36 3.52 3.48 3.60 3.63 3.60 3.67 3.75 3.79 3.79 3.91 3.87 3.83 3.91 3.94 3.91 3.98 3.94 3.94 3.98 3.98 4.02 3.98 4.10

SPECIMEN WEIGHT Specimen 1 Specimen 2 (lb) 8.66 8.48 8.43 8.4 8.38 8.39 8.37 8.37 8.36 8.36 8.35 8.35 8.35 8.35 8.33 8.33 8.33 8.33 8.33 8.33 8.33 8.32 8.33 8.32 8.32 8.32 8.32 8.32 8.32 8.32 8.31 Specimen 3

149

Table B.3 DRYING TIME (Days) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90

HPC Free Shrinkage at Various Ages STANDARD DEVIATION (Strains) 0 6 0 0 0 11 0 0 6 6 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 6 6 6 6

FREE SHRINKAGE Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 (Strains) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (Strains) 0 136 264 328 400 488 512 552 560 536 544 520 536 560 576 568 576 552 592 624 600 576 624 632 640 640 648 640 592 576 544 (Strains) 0 128 264 328 400 472 512 552 552 544 544 512 544 568 584 576 584 560 600 632 608 584 632 624 648 648 648 648 600 584 552

AVERAGE (Strains) 0 132 264 328 400 480 512 552 556 540 544 516 540 564 580 572 580 556 596 628 604 580 628 628 644 644 648 644 596 580 548

150

Table B.4 DRYING TIME (Days) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90

HPC Weight Loss at Various Ages AVERAGE WEIGHT (lb) 8.61 8.41 8.38 8.37 8.36 8.34 8.34 8.34 8.31 8.33 8.33 8.32 8.32 8.32 8.31 8.31 8.31 8.29 8.29 8.31 8.29 8.30 8.30 8.29 8.30 8.29 8.30 8.29 8.29 8.30 8.28 AVERAGE WEIGHT LOSS % 0.00 2.32 2.67 2.83 2.90 3.10 3.14 3.17 3.48 3.29 3.29 3.37 3.41 3.37 3.48 3.48 3.48 3.68 3.72 3.52 3.68 3.64 3.60 3.72 3.60 3.68 3.60 3.68 3.68 3.64 3.79

SPECIMEN WEIGHT Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 (lb) (lb) (lb) 8.62 8.42 8.39 8.37 8.37 8.35 8.34 8.34 8.33 8.33 8.33 8.33 8.32 8.32 8.32 8.31 8.32 8.30 8.30 8.31 8.29 8.31 8.30 8.30 8.31 8.30 8.31 8.30 8.30 8.30 8.29 8.62 8.42 8.39 8.39 8.37 8.35 8.35 8.35 8.32 8.34 8.34 8.33 8.33 8.34 8.32 8.33 8.32 8.31 8.30 8.32 8.31 8.30 8.32 8.30 8.31 8.30 8.31 8.31 8.31 8.31 8.29 8.58 8.39 8.36 8.34 8.34 8.33 8.33 8.32 8.28 8.31 8.31 8.30 8.30 8.30 8.29 8.29 8.29 8.27 8.27 8.29 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.27 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.27 8.27 8.28 8.27

151

Table B.5 DRYING TIME (Days) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90

HPC-SRA Free Shrinkage at Various Ages STANDARD DEVIATION (Strains) 0 9 5 12 9 5 8 12 9 5 5 14 9 9 9 5 5 5 0 9 5 8 12 26 26 14 12 5 0 8 9

FREE SHRINKAGE Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 (Strains) 0 16 72 104 168 232 272 312 320 312 320 304 320 344 360 368 376 360 400 432 408 392 448 456 464 472 472 464 416 408 376 (Strains) 0 0 80 120 184 240 288 320 336 312 312 304 320 344 360 368 376 352 400 416 400 384 432 448 456 448 456 456 416 400 376 (Strains) 0 0 72 128 184 240 280 336 336 320 320 328 336 360 376 376 384 360 400 432 408 400 456 496 504 472 480 464 416 416 392

AVERAGE (Strains) 0 5 75 117 179 237 280 323 331 315 317 312 325 349 365 371 379 357 400 427 405 392 445 467 475 464 469 461 416 408 381

152

Table B.6 DRYING TIME (Days) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90

HPC-SRA Weight Loss at Various Ages AVERAGE WEIGHT (lb) 8.63 8.44 8.40 8.39 8.38 8.38 8.37 8.37 8.35 8.35 8.35 8.35 8.35 8.34 8.34 8.33 8.33 8.32 8.32 8.33 8.32 8.32 8.32 8.31 8.32 8.37 8.37 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.35 AVERAGE WEIGHT LOSS % 0.00 2.20 2.63 2.82 2.86 2.94 3.01 3.05 3.24 3.28 3.24 3.28 3.28 3.36 3.40 3.48 3.48 3.59 3.63 3.51 3.59 3.59 3.59 3.71 3.59 3.01 3.05 3.09 3.09 3.13 3.21

SPECIMEN WEIGHT Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 (lb) 8.60 8.40 8.35 8.33 8.33 8.32 8.32 8.31 8.29 8.29 8.29 8.28 8.29 8.28 8.28 8.27 8.27 8.26 8.27 8.27 8.26 8.26 8.26 8.25 8.26 8.31 8.31 8.30 8.30 8.31 8.29 (lb) 8.68 8.50 8.47 8.45 8.45 8.44 8.43 8.44 8.42 8.42 8.42 8.42 8.41 8.41 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.39 8.38 8.39 8.39 8.39 8.39 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.37 8.37 (lb) 8.60 8.42 8.39 8.38 8.37 8.37 8.36 8.35 8.34 8.33 8.34 8.34 8.34 8.33 8.33 8.32 8.32 8.31 8.30 8.32 8.31 8.31 8.31 8.30 8.32 8.42 8.41 8.41 8.41 8.40 8.40

153

Table B.7 DRYING TIME (Days) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90

HPC-L Free Shrinkage at Various Ages STANDARD DEVIATION (Strains) 0 5 8 8 9 5 8 21 14 12 24 28 26 17 18 21 28 21 28 36 26 28 32 32 36 36 32 28 32 65 49

FREE SHRINKAGE Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 (Strains) 0 104 192 280 336 376 400 400 408 400 416 432 456 464 472 456 496 512 568 552 600 624 632 640 648 624 584 560 544 712 560 (Strains) 0 112 200 288 352 384 416 392 408 408 448 480 496 488 504 488 544 552 536 520 592 600 600 616 616 592 552 536 512 632 568 (Strains) 0 104 184 272 336 376 408 360 384 384 400 432 448 456 472 448 496 520 512 480 552 568 568 576 576 552 520 504 480 584 480

AVERAGE (Strains) 0 107 192 280 341 379 408 384 400 397 421 448 467 469 483 464 512 528 539 517 581 597 600 611 613 589 552 533 512 643 536

154

Table B.8 DRYING TIME (Days) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90

HPC-L Weight Loss at Various Ages AVERAGE WEIGHT (lb) 8.37 8.28 8.27 8.26 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.24 8.24 8.23 8.23 8.22 8.22 8.22 8.21 8.20 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.20 8.21 8.21 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.19 8.21 8.20 AVERAGE WEIGHT LOSS % 0.00 1.04 1.23 1.31 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.55 1.55 1.71 1.67 1.75 1.75 1.79 1.91 2.03 1.91 1.87 1.87 1.91 1.91 1.99 1.91 1.91 1.99 1.99 1.99 2.03 2.15 1.95 2.03

SPECIMEN WEIGHT Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 (lb) 8.30 8.22 8.2 8.2 8.19 8.19 8.19 8.18 8.18 8.17 8.17 8.16 8.16 8.16 8.15 8.13 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.14 8.15 8.15 8.14 8.13 8.13 8.14 8.12 8.14 8.14 (lb) 8.40 8.32 8.3 8.29 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.26 8.27 8.26 8.26 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.24 8.23 8.24 8.25 8.24 8.24 8.24 8.24 8.24 8.24 8.24 8.24 8.24 8.23 8.22 8.24 8.23 (lb) 8.40 8.31 8.30 8.29 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.28 8.27 8.25 8.26 8.26 8.26 8.25 8.24 8.24 8.24 8.24 8.25 8.24 8.24 8.23 8.24 8.24 8.23 8.24 8.24 8.23 8.23 8.24 8.23

155

Table B.9 DRYING TIME (Days) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90

OLMC Free Shrinkage at Various Ages STANDARD DEVIATION (Strains) 0 5 9 24 9 5 5 14 8 18 5 5 5 8 30 26 26 35 30 26 30 30 26 35 30 35 33 24 28 36 32

FREE SHRINKAGE Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 (Strains) 0 88 160 232 288 344 352 352 376 376 408 432 456 456 472 456 520 528 520 496 560 584 592 600 600 576 536 528 504 616 504 (Strains) 0 96 176 184 304 344 360 352 368 376 408 432 464 472 528 504 560 592 568 544 616 640 640 656 656 640 600 576 552 656 560 (Strains) 0 88 160 208 304 352 352 376 384 408 400 424 464 464 480 464 512 536 512 504 568 592 600 592 608 584 552 552 504 584 504

AVERAGE (Strains) 0 91 165 208 299 347 355 360 376 387 405 429 461 464 493 475 531 552 533 515 581 605 611 616 621 600 563 552 520 619 523

156

Table B.10 DRYING TIME (Days) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90

OLMC Weight Loss at Various Ages AVERAGE WEIGHT (lb) 8.52 8.45 8.44 8.42 8.43 8.41 8.42 8.41 8.41 8.40 8.41 8.40 8.39 8.39 8.39 8.39 8.38 8.39 8.37 8.38 8.39 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.37 8.38 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.38 AVERAGE WEIGHT LOSS % 0.00 0.82 0.98 1.13 1.06 1.33 1.21 1.29 1.25 1.45 1.33 1.45 1.49 1.53 1.49 1.56 1.64 1.56 1.72 1.68 1.56 1.68 1.64 1.68 1.72 1.68 1.72 1.72 1.76 1.72 1.68

SPECIMEN WEIGHT Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 (lb) (lb) (lb) 8.51 8.44 8.43 8.42 8.42 8.42 8.41 8.40 8.40 8.39 8.39 8.39 8.38 8.38 8.39 8.39 8.37 8.37 8.36 8.37 8.38 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.36 8.37 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.37 8.37 8.50 8.44 8.42 8.42 8.42 8.36 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.38 8.4 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.37 8.37 8.38 8.36 8.36 8.37 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.54 8.47 8.46 8.43 8.45 8.44 8.44 8.43 8.44 8.42 8.43 8.42 8.42 8.41 8.41 8.40 8.40 8.41 8.40 8.40 8.41 8.40 8.41 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.40 8.39 8.39 8.40

157

APPENDIX C Rapid Chloride Permeability Test Results

158

Table C.1 SPECIMEN 1 TIME (Minutes) 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Current (Amperes) 0 0.153 0.171 0.191 0.211 0.23 0.252 0.274 0.295 0.317 0.339 0.359 0.373

RCPT Results for NC SPECIMEN 2 Current (Amperes) 0 0.154 0.168 0.189 0.21 0.233 0.251 0.271 0.295 0.318 0.338 0.361 0.369 Charge (Coulombs) 0 258 546 868 1226 1622 2056 2529 3042 3596 4190 4818 5479

Charge (Coulombs) 0 259 550 874 1233 1629 2062 2533 3034 3594 4184 4812 5475

159

Table C.2 SPECIMEN 1 TIME (Minutes) 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Current (Amperes) 0.000 0.051 0.054 0.056 0.059 0.061 0.063 0.066 0.066 0.068 0.069 0.073 0.073

RCPT Results for HPC SPECIMEN 2 Current (Amperes) 0 0.060 0.063 0.064 0.068 0.071 0.074 0.077 0.080 0.083 0.085 0.088 0.090 Charge (Coulombs) 0 108 221 336 455 581 712 848 990 1137 1288 1445 1605

Charge (Coulombs) 0 91 187 288 393 503 617 735 854 975 1100 1228 1360

160

Table C.3

RCPT Results for HPC-SRA SPECIMEN 2 Current (Amperes) 0 0.46 0.047 0.049 0.049 0.051 0.053 0.054 0.055 0.057 0.056 0.058 0.059 Charge (Coulombs) 0 83 169 257 347 440 535 631 730 831 933 1037 1143

SPECIMEN 1 TIME (Minutes) 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Current (Amperes) 0 0.044 0.045 0.047 0.047 0.049 0.050 0.051 0.052 0.054 0.055 0.056 0.057 Charge (Coulombs) 0 80 164 249 337 427 518 611 706 803 901 1002 1105

161

Table C.4

RCPT Results for HPC-L SPECIMEN 2 Current (Amperes) 0 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.017 Charge (Coulombs) 0 29 59 89 119 150 181 212 243 275 306 338 370

SPECIMEN 1 TIME (Minutes) 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Current (Amperes) 0 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.016 Charge (Coulombs) 0 28 57 86 116 146 176 207 238 269 300 331 363

162

Table C.5

RCPT Results for OLMC SPECIMEN 2 Current (Amperes) 0 0.034 0.034 0.036 0.036 0.037 0.037 0.038 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.040 Charge (Coulombs) 0 62 126 190 256 324 392 461 532 603 675 747 820

SPECIMEN 1 TIME (Minutes) 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Current (Amperes) 0 0.034 0.035 0.036 0.036 0.037 0.038 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.040 0.040 0.041 Charge (Coulombs) 0 62 127 192 259 326 395 464 535 606 678 750 824

163

APPENDIX D Creep Test Results

164

Table D.1 TIME SINCE LOADING (Days) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 SPECIMEN 1 Side 1 Side 2 (Strains) 0 118 161 204 178 215 231 253 285 312 334 350 344 387 387 387 393 447 441 430 430 441 479 436 554 452 441 452 522 500 516 0 81 140 151 178 210 215 215 264 221 296 307 301 328 344 350 393 387 377 398 403 420 430 420 409 404 420 414 490 457 490

Free Shrinkage Strain for NC SPECIMEN 2 Side 1 Side 2 (Strains) 0 134 151 135 183 215 215 237 258 280 301 317 307 350 350 360 366 403 398 393 393 398 436 382 414 393 387 403 500 452 495 0 -22 32 48 86 113 113 124 167 145 215 221 215 247 264 280 269 317 317 317 328 350 371 323 334 334 317 317 414 382 409 AVERAGE STANDARD STRAIN DEVIATION (Strains) (Strains) 0 78 121 135 156 188 194 207 243 239 286 299 292 328 336 344 355 389 383 385 389 402 429 390 428 395 391 397 482 448 477 0 70 60 65 47 50 54 58 52 73 50 55 55 59 52 46 59 54 51 48 43 39 44 50 92 49 54 57 47 49 47

165

Table D.2 TIME SINCE LOADING (Days) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90

Free Shrinkage Strain for HPC AVERAGE STRAIN (Strains) 0 78 113 151 180 191 213 258 234 274 309 293 334 334 317 336 360 355 358 350 379 406 352 379 363 331 336 430 393 412 363 STANDARD DEVIATION (Strains) 0 4 15 8 4 4 11 8 19 15 19 19 15 15 8 19 8 15 19 38 11 19 27 19 4 11 4 8 8 11 11

SPECIMEN 1 SPECIMEN 2 (Strains) 0 0 81 75 102 124 145 156 183 178 188 194 204 221 264 253 221 247 264 285 296 323 280 307 323 344 323 344 312 323 323 350 355 366 344 366 344 371 323 377 371 387 393 420 334 371 366 393 360 366 323 339 334 339 425 436 387 398 404 420 355 371

166

Table D.3 TIME SINCE LOADING (Days) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 SPECIMEN 1 Side 1 Side 2 (Strains) 0 0 178 199 441 285 414 344 533 409 587 446 603 468 614 511 678 554 614 532 635 602 748 635 694 624 753 678 791 721 791 705 786 731 823 742 829 769 818 748 856 764 866 791 920 785 856 769 888 801 883 887 915 828 866 748 1012 925 969 871 1001 920

Total Strain for NC SPECIMEN 2 Side 1 Side 2 (Strains) 0 0 215 285 307 366 355 485 431 511 468 544 468 581 511 635 597 662 527 667 597 737 624 770 619 754 667 813 678 845 694 829 710 877 737 893 769 915 748 888 769 936 802 942 802 1006 775 926 807 974 786 1001 829 969 769 904 952 1076 893 1012 1200 1066 AVERAGE STANDARD DEVIATION (Strains) 0 47 70 65 61 65 72 66 58 68 65 75 64 68 74 66 75 74 69 67 82 70 104 74 81 88 69 75 67 65 118

STRAIN (Strains) 0 219 350 400 471 511 530 568 623 585 643 694 673 728 759 755 776 799 821 800 831 850 878 831 868 889 885 822 991 936 1047

167

Table D.4 TIME SINCE LOADING (Days) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90

Total Strain for HPC AVERAGE STRAIN (Strains) 0 180 339 457 505 540 573 680 621 670 729 699 756 769 772 769 801 839 807 828 844 861 823 844 834 871 801 1000 871 917 861 STANDARD DEVIATION (Strains) 0 42 46 15 76 118 87 171 95 95 118 84 95 107 110 99 114 129 107 107 107 99 259 107 107 145 129 205 129 133 129

SPECIMEN 1 SPECIMEN 2 (Strains) 0 0 210 150 371 306 468 446 559 452 624 457 635 511 801 559 688 554 737 602 812 645 758 640 823 688 844 694 850 694 839 699 882 721 930 748 882 731 904 753 920 769 930 791 1006 640 920 769 909 758 974 769 893 710 1146 855 963 780 1011 823 952 769

168

Table D.5 TIME SINCE LOADING (Days) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90

Creep Strain and Specific Creep for NC and HPC NC HPC SPECIFIC CREEP (Strain/psi) (Strain/psi) 0.000 0.000 0.099 0.063 0.160 0.139 0.185 0.188 0.220 0.200 0.225 0.214 0.235 0.221 0.252 0.259 0.265 0.237 0.241 0.242 0.249 0.257 0.276 0.249 0.266 0.259 0.279 0.267 0.295 0.279 0.286 0.266 0.294 0.270 0.286 0.297 0.305 0.275 0.290 0.294 0.309 0.285 0.313 0.279 0.313 0.289 0.308 0.285 0.307 0.289 0.344 0.332 0.344 0.285 0.297 0.350 0.356 0.294 0.341 0.310 0.397 0.305

NC HPC CREEP STRAIN (Strains) (Strains) 0 0 141 102 228 226 265 307 314 326 322 350 336 361 360 423 379 388 345 396 356 420 395 406 380 423 399 436 422 455 410 433 421 441 410 484 437 449 415 479 442 466 447 455 449 471 441 466 439 471 493 541 493 466 425 571 509 479 488 506 569 498

169

Table D.6

Creep Test Load Values for HPC

TIME SINCE LOADING (Days) 0 2 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90

LOAD (kips) 57.622 55.832 55.413 54.853 54.741 54.042 54.070 53.734 53.762 53.846 52.951 53.091 52.951 52.755 53.706 54.294 53.958 52.895 53.790 53.566 53.399 53.203 53.371 53.147 52.643 54.545 54.070 54.378 53.483 53.455 53.063 53.734

170

APPENDIX E Crack Data Results

171

Table E.1 Drying Specimen Time (Days) 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Number Crack Number Crack Width (mm) 0.43 0.45 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.54 0.55 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.57 0.59 0.61 0.60 0.61 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.63 0.60 0.62

Crack Data for NC Crack Length (cm) 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Specimen Number Crack Number Crack Width (mm) 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.32 0.31 0.36 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.37 0.35 0.40 0.41 0.44 0.47 0.44 0.39 0.45 0.43 0.45 0.45 0.43 0.47 0.45 Crack Length (cm) 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25

172

Table E.2 Drying Specimen Time (Days) 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Number Crack Number

Crack Data for HPC, Specimen 1 Crack Width (mm) 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 Crack Length (cm) 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Specimen Number Crack Number Crack Width (mm) 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 Crack Length (cm) 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75

173

Table E.3 Drying Specimen Time (Days) 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Number Crack

Crack Data for HPC, Specimen 2 Crack (mm) Crack Length (cm) Specimen Number Crack Crack (mm) Crack Length (cm)

Number Width

Number Width

0.07 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.17 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.17

17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75 17.75

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

0.07 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.12

15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25

174

Table E.4 DRYING TIME (Days) 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SPECIMEN NUMBER

Crack Data for HPC-SRA CRACK NUMBER CRACK WIDTH (mm) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.11 CRACK LENGTH (cm) 2.5 2.5 2.5 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0

175

Table E.5 DRYING TIME (Days) 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 SPECIMEN NUMBER

Crack Data for HPC-L CRACK NUMBER CRACK WIDTH (mm) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.11 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 CRACK LENGTH (cm) 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25

176

Table E.6

Average Crack Widths and Standard Deviations for All Mixtures NC HPC HPC-SRA HPC-L

DRYING TIME (Days) 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90

AVERAGE STANDARD AVERAGE STANDARD CRACK CRACK WIDTH (mm) 0.35 0.36 0.38 0.39 0.41 0.41 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.47 0.45 0.48 0.50 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.50 0.53 0.52 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 DEVIATION (mm) 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.09 0.12 WIDTH (mm) 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 DEVIATION WIDTH (mm) 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 (mm) WIDTH (mm)

177