Highway Concrete Technology Development and Testing Volume IIi: Field Evaluation of SHRP C-205 Test Sites (High Performance Concrete)

PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®

FOREWORD

This research study, sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration, summarizes the field performance of eight high-early-strength (HES) concrete patches between 1994 and 1998. The patches were constructed under the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) between June 1991 and July 1992 and were located in five States (Arkansas, Illinois, Nebraska, New York, and North Carolina) using existing State construction practices. The patches were constructed mainly with Type III cement, four different types of coarse aggregate, and three different types of fine aggregate. Similar types of air entraining admixtures, water reducers, and set accelerators were used at all except the North Carolina site. The patches were located in areas with varying environmental and traffic conditions. The performance criterion of interest was durability. Durability of the HES concrete was quantified over a period of 7 years using various indicators including compressive strength, static elastic modulus, rapid chloride permeability, and asphalt concrete (AC) impedance. The HES patches were also examined visually to locate any material- or durability-related distresses. This report discusses in detail the effects of climate and material properties on the HES concrete durability.

Some of the results of interest include the effect of water reducer type, curing metHod, and aggregate type on long-term durability. The report also presents comparisons of the rapid chloride permeability and AC impedance test results and the rate of strength gain for the mixes evaluated. Overall, the HES patches performed well with no obvious signs of deterioration. However, the results were not conclusive because the performance-monitoring period was relatively sHort. There is a need for further research in the areas of long-term HES concrete mechanical properties and durability.

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Technical Report Documentation Page

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page autHorized

SI* (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
  • BACKGROUND
  • DESCRIPTION OF THE FIELD SECTIONS
  • SUMMARY OF SECTION PROPERTIES-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
  • OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
• CHAPTER 2. VISUAL EXAMINATION OF SHRP C-205 SITES
  • ARKANSAS
  • ILLINOIS
  • NEBRASKA
  • NEW YORK
  • NORTH CAROLINA
  • SUMMARY OF VISUAL EXAMINATION RESULTS
• CHAPTER 3. CONCRETE CORE TESTING
  • CORING PLAN
  • SIGNIFICANCE OF PERFORMANCE TESTS AND LABORATORY TEST PROTOCOLS
  • DESCRIPTION OF METHoDS USED FOR DATA ANALYSIS
  • DATA ANALYSIS
• CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  • CONCLUSIONS
  • RECOMMENDATIONS

• APPENDIX A. CURVATURE INDEX

• REFERENCES

LIST OF FIGURES

• Figure 1. Graph. Plot of compressive strength versus age for test site in Arkansas
• Figure 2. Graph. Plot of compressive strength versus age for test site in Illinois
• Figure 3. Graph. Plot of strength gain for the different experiments (aggregate type and water reducer type) in North Carolina
• Figure 4. Graph. Plot of compressive strength versus age for test site in Nebraska
• Figure 5. Graph. Plot of compressive strength versus age for test site in New York(data available for insulated sections only)
• Figure 6. Graph. Plot of cores' compressive strength versus cylinders' compressive strength.
• Figure 7. Graph. Plot of static elastic modulus versus age for the three aggregate types analyzed
• Figure 8. Graph. Plot of the measured and predicted EPCC from compressive strength for crushed granite
• Figure 9. Graph. Plot of the measured and predicted EPCC from compressive strength for marine marl
• Figure 10. Graph. Plot of the measured and predicted EPCC from compressive strength for limestone
• Figure 11. Graph. Plot of charge passed versus concrete age for Arkansas
• Figure 12. Graph. Plot of charge passed versus concrete age for Illinois
• Figure 13. Graph. Plot of charge passed versus concrete age for North Carolina
• Figure 14. Graph. Plot of charge passed versus concrete age for Nebraska
• Figure 15. Graph. Plot of charge passed versus concrete age for New York
• Figure 16. Bar chart. Histogram sHowing RCPT results from the top and bottom sections of concrete cores (Illinois)
• Figure 17. Bar chart. Histogram sHowing RCPT results from the top and bottom sections of concrete cores (North Carolina)
• Figure 18. Bar chart. Histogram sHowing RCPT results from the top and bottom sections of concrete cores (Nebraska and New York)
• Figure 19. Graph. Plot of AC impedance versus age for concrete cores (Arkansas, limestone).
• Figure 20. Graph. Plot of AC impedance versus age for concrete cores (Illinois, limestone).
• Figure 21. Graph. Plot of AC impedance versus age for concrete cores (North Carolina, granite).
• Figure 22. Graph. Plot of AC impedance versus age for concrete cores (Nebraska, limestone).
• Figure 23. Graph. Plot of AC impedance versus age for concrete cores (New York, limestone).
• Figure 24. Graph. RCPT versus AC impedance for the 100-Hz test
• Figure 25. Graph. Distress map for patch NC-1 in North Carolina–1994
• Figure 26. Graph. Distress map for patch NC-1 in North Carolina–1998
• Figure 27. Graph. Distress map for patch NC-2 in North Carolina–1994
• Figure 28. Graph. Distress map for patch NC-2 in North Carolina–1998
• Figure 29. Graph. Distress map for patch AR-1 in Arkansas–1994
• Figure 30. Graph. Distress map for patch AR-1 in Arkansas–1995
• Figure 31. Graph. Distress map for patch AR-2 in Arkansas–1994
• Figure 32. Graph. Distress map for patch AR-2 in Arkansas–1995
• Figure 33. Graph. Distress map of section in New York–1994
• Figure 34. Graph. Distress map of section in New York–1998
• Figure 35. Graph. Distress maps for patches IL-1 and IL-2 in Illinois–1994
• Figure 36. Graph. Distress maps for patches IL-1 and IL-2 in Illinois–1995
• Figure 37. Graph. Distress maps for patches IL-1 and IL-2 in Illinois–1996
• Figure 38. Graph. Distress maps for patches IL-1 and IL-2 in Illinois–1997
• Figure 39. Graph. Distress maps for patches IL-1 and IL-2 in Illinois–1998
• Figure 40. Graph. Distress maps for patches NE-1 and NE-2 in Nebraska–1994
• Figure 41. Graph. Distress maps for patches NE-1 and NE-2 in Nebraska–1995
• Figure 42. Graph. Distress maps for patches NE-1 and NE-2 in Nebraska–1996
• Figure 43. Graph. Distress maps for patches NE-1 and NE-2 in Nebraska–1997
• Figure 44. Graph. Distress maps for patches NE-1 and NE-2 in Nebraska–1998

LIST OF TABLES

• Table 1. Comparison of final laboratory and actual field concrete mix proportions for the New York site
• Table 2. Comparison of final laboratory and actual field concrete mix proportions for the Illinois site
• Table 3. Comparison of final laboratory and actual field concrete mix proportions for the Arkansas site
• Table 4. Comparison of final laboratory and actual field concrete mix proportions for the Nebraska site
• Table 5. Summary of materials, site factors, and fresh concrete properties for the SHRP C-205 sites
• Table 6. Distress summary of SHRP C-205 section in North Carolina
• Table 7. Summary of testing performed
• Table 8. Matrix of climate and material properties used in grouping the test sites for analysis
• Table 9. Summary of strength gain for combined compressive strength test data
• Table 10. RCPT Chloride permeability ratings
• Table 11. Summary of chloride permeability for test sites evaluated
• Table 12. RCPT and 100-Hz AC impedance test ratings
• Table 13. Summary of ANOVA results for the effect of curing metHod on strength
• Table 14. Summary of analysis of variance results for the effect of curing metHod on concrete permeability
• Table 15. Summary of analysis of variance results for the effect of aggregate type on strength
• Table 16. Summary of analysis of variance results for the effect of aggregate type on concrete permeability
• Table 17. Summary of analysis of variance results for evaluating specimen RCPT results