CONTROLLING EARLY-AGE TRANSVERSE CRACKING · PDF fileii Controlling Early-Age Transverse...
197
CONTROLLING EARLY-AGE TRANSVERSE CRACKING IN HIGH PERFORMANCE CONCRETE BRIDGE DECKS by Eric Ying Xian Liu A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Applied Science Department of Civil Engineering University of Toronto © Copyright by Eric Ying Xian Liu 2013
Transcript of CONTROLLING EARLY-AGE TRANSVERSE CRACKING · PDF fileii Controlling Early-Age Transverse...
CONTROLLING EARLY-AGE TRANSVERSE CRACKING IN HIGH PERFORMANCE CONCRETE BRIDGE DECKS
by
Eric Ying Xian Liu
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Applied Science
Department of Civil Engineering University of Toronto
© Copyright by Eric Ying Xian Liu 2013
ii
Controlling Early-Age Transverse Cracking in High Performance
Concrete Bridge Decks
Eric Ying Xian Liu
Master of Applied Science
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
2013
Abstract
This research was undertaken to study the effects of high performance concrete (HPC) mix
design modifications on the propensity of early-age cracking. Seven mixtures were tested: one 35
MPa conventional concrete (CC) mixture made with ordinary Portland cement with blended slag;
one typical 50 MPa HPC mixture containing slag and silica fume; and five modified HPC
mixtures using extra set-retarder, increased slag replacement, shrinkage-reducing admixture
(SRA), pre-saturated lightweight aggregate (LWA), and decreased cement paste content to
improve thermal and/or shrinkage properties. The mixtures were tested for durability,
mechanical, thermal, and shrinkage properties. All modified HPC mixtures showed reduced
shrinkage relative to the HPC control mixture, and the most shrinkage mitigation was observed
in the mixture containing LWA. While SRA reduced restrained shrinkage in HPC to the
magnitude of CC, it provided very low rapid chloride penetrability, and using LWA in HPC
resulted in significant restrained shrinkage reduction compared to CC.
iii
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I offer my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor, Professor R. Doug Hooton,
who supported me throughout my graduate studies with his guidance and knowledge. I would
like to thank the Ontario Ministry of Transportation for the interesting research topic.
Furthermore, I would like to express my appreciation to Holcim Canada, Euclid Chemical, and
DiGeronimo Aggregate for their generosity and supply of all concrete constituents materials.
I would also like to extend my gratefulness to the concrete materials research group at the
University of Toronto for their insightful advice and assistance throughout my graduate studies:
Olga Perebatova, Professor Karl Peterson, Professor Daman Panesar, Majella Anson-Cartwright,
Ardavan Amirchoupani, Bishnu Gautam, Ping Fang, Ge-Hung Yee-Ching, Jonathan Rebelo,
Mohammad Aqel, Reza Ahani, Mahsa Dolatabadi, Haizhu Lu, Soley Einarsdottir, Lucas Pitta,
David Wach, and Elvis Xhameni. A special thank you to Bob Manson, John MacDonald,
XiaoMing Sun, Giovanni Buzzeo, and Renzo Basset for their technical support and patience.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents and my sister for their unconditional support and
encouragement. I feel very fortunate to have them in my life, and they are my most important
source of motivation in accomplishing my goals.
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ xii
List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................................... xiii
Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objective ............................................................................................................................. 2
Chapter 2 Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 3
2.1 High Performance Concrete ................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Early-Age Cracking Mechanisms ....................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 The Setting of Concrete .......................................................................................... 4
2.2.2 Shrinkage Mechanisms ........................................................................................... 4
2.2.3 Restraint ................................................................................................................ 11
2.2.4 Modulus of Elasticity and Creep ........................................................................... 12
2.2.5 Strength Development .......................................................................................... 13
2.3 Mitigations through Concrete Mix Design Modifications ................................................ 14
2.3.1 Thermal Shrinkage Reduction .............................................................................. 14
2.3.2 Capillary Pressure Minimization .......................................................................... 15
2.3.3 Internal Curing ...................................................................................................... 15
2.3.4 Cement Paste Reduction ....................................................................................... 17
2.4 Mitigation through Appropriate Construction Practice .................................................... 19
2.4.1 Ambient Conditions .............................................................................................. 19
v
2.4.2 Pour Sequence ....................................................................................................... 21
2.4.3 Curing ................................................................................................................... 22
Chapter 3 Experimental ................................................................................................................ 24
3.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................... 24
3.2 Materials for Laboratory Testing ...................................................................................... 26
3.2.1 Cementitious Material ........................................................................................... 26
3.2.2 Coarse and Fine Aggregates ................................................................................. 26
3.2.3 Chemical Admixtures ........................................................................................... 29
3.3 Concrete Mix Designs ....................................................................................................... 30
3.3.1 Providing Extra Set Control .................................................................................. 31
3.3.2 Limiting Hydraulic Reaction ................................................................................ 31
3.3.3 Reducing Surface Tension of Water ..................................................................... 31
3.3.4 Providing Internal Curing ..................................................................................... 32
3.3.5 Paste Reduction ..................................................................................................... 32
3.3.6 Nomenclature ........................................................................................................ 35
3.4 Mixing Procedures ............................................................................................................ 37
3.5 Fresh Properties ................................................................................................................ 39
3.5.1 Slump .................................................................................................................... 40
3.5.2 Fresh Density ........................................................................................................ 40
3.5.3 Air Content ............................................................................................................ 40
3.6 Casting and Testing Procedures ........................................................................................ 41
3.6.1 Cylinders ............................................................................................................... 41
3.6.2 Prisms .................................................................................................................... 42
3.6.3 Combined Autogenous and Thermal Test Prisms ................................................ 43
3.6.4 Restrained Shrinkage Test .................................................................................... 45
3.6.5 Isothermal Heat of Hydration Test ....................................................................... 48
vi
3.6.6 Semi-Adiabatic Heat of Hydration Test ............................................................... 49
Chapter 4 Results .......................................................................................................................... 51
4.1 Fresh Density .................................................................................................................... 51
4.2 Durability .......................................................................................................................... 51
4.3 Mechanical Properties ....................................................................................................... 52
4.3.1 Compressive Strength ........................................................................................... 52
4.3.2 Splitting Tensile Strength ..................................................................................... 52
4.3.3 Static Young’s Modulus of Elasticity ................................................................... 53
4.3.4 Dynamic Young’s Modulus of Elasticity ............................................................. 54
4.4 Thermal Properties ............................................................................................................ 54
4.4.1 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion ........................................................................ 54
4.4.2 Isothermal Calorimetry ......................................................................................... 55
4.4.3 Semi-Adiabatic Calorimetry ................................................................................. 55
4.5 Volume Change ................................................................................................................ 56
4.5.1 Linear Drying Shrinkage ....................................................................................... 56
4.5.2 Autogenous/Thermal Shrinkage ........................................................................... 56
4.5.3 Restrained Shrinkage ............................................................................................ 57
Chapter 5 Analysis and Discussion ............................................................................................... 59
5.1 Fresh Properties ................................................................................................................ 59
5.1.1 Influence of Mix Modifications on Slump ............................................................ 59
5.1.2 Influence of Mix Modifications on Air Content ................................................... 60
5.1.3 Influence of Mix Modifications on Relative Yield and w/cm .............................. 60
5.2 Durability .......................................................................................................................... 61
5.3 Mechanical Properties ....................................................................................................... 62
5.3.1 Influence of Mix Modifications on Compressive Strength ................................... 62
5.3.2 Influence of Mix Modifications on Splitting Tensile Strength ............................. 64
vii
5.3.3 Influence of Mix Modifications on the Static Modulus of Elasticity ................... 65
5.3.4 Influence of Mix Modifications on the Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity .............. 67
5.4 Thermal Properties ............................................................................................................ 70
5.4.1 Influence of Mix Modifications on Coefficient of Thermal Expansion ............... 70
5.4.2 Influence of Mix Modifications on Isothermal Calorimetry ................................. 71
5.4.3 Influence of Mix Modifications on Semi-Adiabatic Calorimetry ......................... 73
5.5 Shrinkage Properties ......................................................................................................... 74
5.5.1 Linear Drying Shrinkage ....................................................................................... 74
5.5.2 Influence of Mix Modifications on Autogenous Shrinkage ................................. 75
5.5.3 Influence of Mix Modifications on Restrained Shrinkage .................................... 77
Chapter 6 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations .......................................................... 81
6.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 81
6.2 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 84
6.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 85
6.3.1 For the Ontario Ministry of Transportation .......................................................... 85
6.3.2 For Future Research .............................................................................................. 86
References ..................................................................................................................................... 87
viii
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Heat of hydration of pure compounds (Neville & Brooks, 2010) ................................. 7
Table 2-2: Effect of aggregate on coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete (Kosmatka,
Kerkhoff, Panarese, Macleod, & Mcgrath, 2003) ........................................................................... 9
Table 2-3: Chemical shrinkage for individual cement phases (Holt, 2001) ................................. 10
Table 2-4: Autogenous shrinkage coefficients (Bentz, 2007) ...................................................... 11
Table 2-5: Bridge deck placement temperature recommendations (Hadidi & Saadeghvaziri,
2005) ............................................................................................................................................. 21
Table 3-1: Experimental program overview ................................................................................. 25
Table 3-2: Relative density of cementitious material (values provided by Holcim Canada) ....... 26
Table 3-3: Coarse aggregate gradations ........................................................................................ 27
Table 3-4: Other coarse aggregate parameters required for the design of concrete mixture ........ 27
Table 3-5: Fine aggregate gradations ............................................................................................ 28
Table 3-6: Other fine aggregate parameters required for the design of concrete mixture ............ 28
Table 3-7: Chemical admixtures used in experiment ................................................................... 30
Table 3-8: Two options of blended aggregate .............................................................................. 34
Table 3-9: Naming system for mix designs .................................................................................. 36
Table 3-10: Concrete mix design summary .................................................................................. 37
Table 3-11: Aggregate correction factors for fresh air content measurements ............................. 41
Table 4-1: Fresh densities, relative yields, and actual cement contents ....................................... 51
Table 4-2: RCPT and conductivity results .................................................................................... 52
ix
Table 4-3: Cylinder compressive strengths ................................................................................... 52
Table 4-4: Splitting tensile strengths ............................................................................................ 53
Table 4-5: Static Young’s moduli of elasticity ............................................................................. 53
Table 4-6: Dynamic Young's moduli of elasticity ........................................................................ 54
Table 4-7: Coefficient of thermal expansions ............................................................................... 55
Table 4-8: Peak heat evolutions .................................................................................................... 55
Table 4-9: Peak temperatures in semi-adiabatic chamber ............................................................ 56
Table 4-10: Linear drying shrinkage (%) after 7 days wet curing ................................................ 56
Table 4-11: Autogenous/thermal shrinkage results ...................................................................... 57
Table 4-12: Restrained shrinkage results ...................................................................................... 58
Table 5-1: Chloride ion penetrability based on charge passed (ASTM Standard C1202, 2010) .. 61
Table 5-2: Student t-distribution analysis for comparison relative to 50MPa-Con ...................... 78
Table 5-3: Student t-distribution analysis for comparison relative to 35MPa-Con ...................... 78
Table 6-1: Summary of experimental results relative to the HPC control mixture ...................... 82
Table 6-2: Summary of experimental results relative to the conventional concrete mixture ....... 83
x
List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Development of zero-stress temperature gradient (Mangold, 1994) ........................... 8
Figure 2-2: Comparison of autogenous shrinkage and chemical shrinkage (Hammer, 1999) ...... 10
Figure 2-3: Effects of (A) water-cement ratio and (B) age of loading on creep (Neville & Brooks,
2010) ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 2-4: Compressive strength development of (A) silica fume, (B) fly ash, (C) metakaolin,
and (D) slag at different replacement levels (Megat Johari et al., 2011) ...................................... 14
Figure 2-5: Comparison between providing entrained water for complete hydration (line) and for
maintaining saturated pores (dots) (Bentz et al., 2005) ................................................................ 17
Figure 2-6: Effect of concrete and air temperatures, relative humidity, and wind speed on the rate
of evaporation of surface moisture from concrete (ACI Committee 305, 2007). ......................... 20
Figure 2-7: Recommended pouring sequence (Issa, 1999) ........................................................... 22
Figure 3-1: Aggregate gradations ................................................................................................. 29
Figure 3-2: Blending using 0.45 power chart ............................................................................... 33
Figure 3-3: Bulk volume of coarse aggregate per unit volume of concrete (ACI Committee 211.1,
2007) ............................................................................................................................................. 34
Figure 3-4: Saturation of coarse aggregate ................................................................................... 38
Figure 3-5: Preparation of LWA ................................................................................................... 38
Figure 3-6: CTE (A) prisms in room temperature and (B) prisms in hot bath ............................. 43
Figure 3-7: Autogenous and thermal shrinkage test set-up .......................................................... 44
Figure 3-8: LVDT (A) probes and (B) anchoring ......................................................................... 45
xi
Figure 3-9: Restrained shrinkage ring set-up during (A) base preparation, (B) mould preparation,
(C) after casting, and (D) exposed to drying ................................................................................. 47
Figure 3-10: Isothermal calorimetry (A) set-up and (B) specimen container ............................... 49
Figure 3-11: SURE CURE (A) test set-up and (B) casting .......................................................... 50
Figure 5-1: 28 and 56 day rapid chloride penetration and conductivity results ............................ 62
Figure 5-2: Compressive strength development ........................................................................... 64
Figure 5-3: Splitting tensile strength development ....................................................................... 65
Figure 5-4: Static modulus of elasticity development .................................................................. 66
Figure 5-5: Static modulus versus compressive strength at 3, 7, 28 days .................................... 67
Figure 5-6: Dynamic modulus of elasticity development ............................................................. 68
Figure 5-7: Dynamic modulus versus compressive strength at 3, 7, 28 days ............................... 69
Figure 5-8: Dynamic versus static modulus at 3, 7, 14, and 28 days ............................................ 70
Figure 5-9: Coefficient of thermal expansions at different ages ................................................... 71
Figure 5-10: Hydration kinetics from isothermal calorimetry ...................................................... 72
Figure 5-11: Heat evolutions from isothermal calorimetry .......................................................... 73
Figure 5-12: Semi-adiabatic calorimetry ...................................................................................... 74
Figure 5-13: Linear drying shrinkage ........................................................................................... 75
Figure 5-14: Autogenous shrinkage .............................................................................................. 77
Figure 5-15: Restrained shrinkage ................................................................................................ 79
xii
List of Appendices
Appendix A Aggregate Gradation ............................................................................................. 94
Appendix B Coarse Aggregate Absorptions and Densities ....................................................... 97
Appendix C Fine Aggregate Absorptions and Densities ........................................................... 99
Appendix D Volatility of Chemical Admixtures ..................................................................... 101
Appendix E Calculations for Mix Design Containing LWA .................................................. 103
Appendix F Gradation Optimization Using 0.45 Power Chart ............................................... 105
Appendix G Fresh Properties, Admixture Dosages, and Corrected Water/Cement Ratio ...... 107
Appendix H Experimental Values for Relative Yield and Actual Cementitious Content ....... 112
Appendix I Experimental Values for Rapid Chloride Penetration Test ................................. 114
Appendix J Experimental Values for Compressive Strength ................................................. 117
Appendix K Experimental Values for Splitting Tensile Strength ........................................... 119
Appendix L Experimental Values for Static Modulus of Elasticity ....................................... 121
Appendix M Experimental Values for Dynamic Modulus Test ............................................... 150
Appendix N Experimental Values for Coefficient of Thermal Expansion ............................. 158
Appendix O Experimental Values for Isothermal Calorimetry ............................................... 162
Appendix P Experimental Values for Semi-Adiabatic Calorimetry ....................................... 164
Appendix Q Experimental Values for Linear Drying Shrinkage ............................................ 166
Appendix R Experimental Results for Autogenous/Thermal Shrinkage ................................ 174
Appendix S Experimental Values for Restrained Shrinkage .................................................. 182
xiii
List of Acronyms
ACI – American Concrete Institute
ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials
CC – Conventional Concrete
CRD – Difference between the reference bar and comparator reading (for linear drying shrinkage
measurements)
CSA – Canadian Standards Association
GGBFS – Ground Granulated Blasted Furnace Slag
GU – General Use cement
HPC – High Performance Concrete
HSF – Hydraulic Portland/Silica Fume cement (blended GU cement with 8 % silica fume)
LS – Laboratory Standard (from MTO Laboratory Testing Manual)
LVDT – Linear Variable Differential Transformer
MTO – Ontario Ministry of Transportation
OPC – Ordinary Portland Cement
OPSS – Ontario Provincial Standard Specification
RCPT – Rapid Chloride Permeability Test
SCM – Supplementary Cementing Materials
SSD – Saturated Surface Dry
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Early-age transverse cracking in concrete bridge decks has the potential to expose these
structures to premature deterioration. The Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has found
such cracking in many bridge decks with various span geometry, span support, girder type and
size, and end conditions. While cracking was found in both conventional concrete (CC) made
with ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and high performance concrete (HPC) bridge decks, the
MTO suggests HPC bridge decks are more susceptible to damage (Ontario Ministry of
Transportation, 2012).
The MTO specifies that HPC must achieve a minimum strength of 50 MPa at 28 days and
maximum rapid chloride permeability of 1,000 coulombs or less at 28 to 32 days. Typically,
HPC contains silica fume and has a water-to-cementitious material ratio (w/cm) of lower than
0.4. The common deck thickness is 225 mm (Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 2012).
The concern with increased propensity for transverse cracking is not unique to Ontario. The U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) has continuously been reporting bridge structures, of
different superstructure types and in various geographic locations, with early-age transverse
crack developments on the deck slabs (Hadidi & Saadeghvaziri, 2005). The average crack widths
range from 0.08 to 0.20 mm (Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 2012) and they are typically
full depth (Hadidi & Saadeghvaziri, 2005). Although the crack widths are small, they have the
potential to impair the service life of the structure regardless. Mohammed et al. (2001) conducted
an experiment on corrosion with specimens consisting of various crack widths, ranging from 0.1
to 0.7 mm. They concluded that cracks significantly accelerate corrosion rate, regardless of the
crack widths (Mohammed, Otsuki, Hisada, & Shibata, 2001). Hence, corrosion is a concern in
areas where chloride based deicers are used, and freeze-thaw cycles of water in the cracks may
further damage the structure (Hadidi & Saadeghvaziri, 2005).
Although bridge engineers have acknowledged for decades that premature transverse cracks
undermine life span and increase maintenance costs of structures, an effective mitigation method
has not been developed because the contributing factors and their interactions are not fully
2
understood. The study of the cause of cracking is often divided into structural design, material
and mix design, and construction practices (Brown, Sellers, Folliard, & Fowler, 2001; Hadidi &
Saadeghvaziri, 2005; Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 2012).
1.2 Objective
This research is focused on developing strategies to mitigate early-age transverse cracking in
HPC bridge decks through an experimental study of the material. A literature review was
conducted on HPC materials and the various early-age cracking mechanisms involved. From
which, a series of HPC mix designs was developed targeting the cracking mechanisms, and an
experimental program was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of each mitigation method
implemented. The experimental program consisted of various tests assessing durability,
mechanical properties, thermal behaviors, and shrinkage properties. Based on the experimental
results and analyses, conclusions were drawn on the mix design modifications and
recommendations were made on mitigation methods, HPC mix design and construction
standards, and work for future research.
3
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 High Performance Concrete
Prior to the 1960s, the typical strength for concrete bridge decks was between 20 to 30 MPa.
Benefits of polycondensates of naphthalene sulfonate, superplasticizer, as a chemical admixture
in concrete was realized later in the decade, and we were able to produce concrete with low
w/cm ratio, while maintaining working slump, to obtain high strengths up to 45 to 60 MPa
(Aitcin, 1998). Since the 1970s, the use of supplementary cementing materials (SCMs) in
concrete mixtures has been growing in North America, and mixtures containing three different
cementitious materials, ternary mixtures, are becoming more common (Kosmatka, Kerkhoff, &
Panarese, 2003). The commonly used SCMs include silica fume, slag, and fly ash. While slag
and fly ash can enhance the sustainability of concrete production, the use of silica fume can
drastically reduce the porosity of the cement paste, especially at transition zones between cement
pastes and aggregates, and cement pastes and reinforcing steel. Characteristics of silica fume,
including its high silica content, amorphous state, and its extreme fineness, are making it a rapid
pozzolanic reactive material and allowing it to fill the voids between the larger cement particles,
which is known as the ‘filler effect’ (Aitcin, 1998). As a result, the use of silica fume can greatly
reduce concrete permeability. The combination of w/cm reduction and silica fume produce
concretes with improved mechanical properties and, more importantly, impermeability to
enhance protection against deteriorations due to chemical ingress. The collective improvements
in concrete properties attributes to the name high performance concrete.
Despite of the numerous advantages that HPC provides as a construction material, this material
is susceptible to early-age cracking owing to its volume instability and restraint provided by
reinforcement. Study shows that chloride concentrations at crack locations often exceed the
corrosion threshold of conventional reinforcing steel in less than one year (Lindquist, Darwin,
Browning, & Miller, 2007). Although it is less likely for corrosion to extend to uncracked areas
in HPC due to high resistivity, the initiation of corrosion inevitably decreases the expected
service life of the structure (Mohammed et al., 2001). The volume change mechanisms involved
are drying shrinkage, thermal shrinkage, and autogenous shrinkage. While some of the
4
mechanisms are unique to HPC and some are common to all concretes, each mechanism, and its
respective mitigation method, is discussed in the following sections.
2.2 Early-Age Cracking Mechanisms
In addition to shrinkage, the propensity of early-age cracking is heavily dependent on the
restraint from shrinkage, creep and stress relaxation, coefficient of thermal expansion, casting
environment, and development of mechanical properties such as tensile strength.
2.2.1 The Setting of Concrete
The rate of cement hydration is affected by three factors, including proportions of the four
compounds (alite, belite, alumina, and ferrite), fineness of the cement particles, and temperature.
Alumina and alite are the first to react in the hydration process, and, therefore, responsible for
the setting of cement paste. Setting refers to a change from a fluid to solid state. Prior to which,
any movement due to applied stresses will be immediately corrected by a shift in the position of
body (Holt, 2001) and damage such as cracking cannot take place. According to Neville and
Brooks (2010), set time can be determined by the temperature profile of hydration; initial set
corresponds to a rapid rise in temperature, and final set corresponds to the peak temperature.
False set can be differentiated due to lack of heat production.
2.2.2 Shrinkage Mechanisms
2.2.2.1 Moisture Loss
Plastic shrinkage and drying shrinkage are the two types of volume reduction mechanisms
associated with moisture loss from concrete, and they are differentiated based on the physical
state of the concrete, i.e. plastic or hardened.
2.2.2.1.1 Plastic Shrinkage
Plastic shrinkage takes place in freshly placed concrete when it is still plastic and ends once final
set is reached. The water sheen on fresh concrete surfaces disappears when the rate of
evaporation exceeds the rate of bleeding. Upon drying, capillary tension in the water builds up in
fresh concrete, which leads to the development of a complicated system of menisci at, and near,
the surface of the concrete, creating a tensile stress. An earlier disappearance of the water sheen
would result in a more severe cracking because of low tensile strength. Plastic shrinkage creates
5
a stress gradient across the concrete, and tensile stress is generated starting on the surface leading
to plastic shrinkage cracking.
In comparison to usual concrete, HPC often contains silica fume and often has lower w/cm and
higher paste content. Experiments conducted on paste and mortar specimens show that mixtures
containing silica fume are more vulnerable to plastic shrinkage cracking because its fineness
contributes to finer pore sizes and, hence, higher capillary pressure (Cohen, Olek, & Dolch,
1990), and the rate of bleeding is reduced when silica fume is used in concrete, so the rate of
evaporation is more likely to exceed the rate of bleeding (McLeod, Darwin, & Browning, 2009).
Also, it was found that the time of cracking begins earlier for low w/cm concretes, and high paste
content increases crack density (crack area divided by specimen area) of the concrete
(Almusallam, Maslehuddin, Abdul-Waris, & Khan, 1998). Factors affecting plastic shrinkage
include relative humidity, rate of compaction, temperature, wind velocity, and material
permeability (Banthia & Gupta, 2008).
2.2.2.1.2 Drying Shrinkage
While plastic shrinkage only describes the moisture loss prior to final set, the volume reduction
due to moisture loss that takes place at the later ages is commonly referred to as drying
shrinkage. Similarly, if concrete is exposed to an environment that has a lower relative humidity
(RH) than that of the concrete, the concrete will start losing its moisture starting from the
surface. Hansen (1987) suggested that there are two mechanisms involved in drying shrinkage,
and the mechanisms are the Gibbs-Bangham stress and the capillary pressure. Gibbs-Bangham
stress-induced shrinkage is dependent on surface free energy and can be predicted using the
relationship
∆�/� = �∆�, Equation 2-1
Where:
∆l/l =strain due to drying shrinkage,
λ =a constant (cm/N), and
6
∆F =the calculated decrease in surface free energy (N/m), which is a function of relative
humidity (Hansen, 1987).
On the other hand, menisci are created once drying initiates, and each meniscus transfers its
surface tension force from liquid circumferentially around the wall of the capillary pores causing
capillary pressure. LaPlace’s law, Equation 2-2, can be used to predict capillary pressure.
�� = � � ��� , Equation 2-2
where:
uc =capillary tension (pa),
Ts =surface tension of water (N/m2),
θ =the wetting angel of the liquid on the surface of the capillary, and
d =is the diameter of capillary pore (m).
It can be observed from Equation 2-2 that the capillary pressure is proportional to the liquid’s
surface tension and inversely proportional to the diameter of the capillary. Hansen (1987) also
concluded that capillary tension is only active when RH is higher than 25 % and Gibbs-Bangham
is active between 0 to 100 %. Furthermore, only about 33 % of the first time drying shrinkage
may be reversible while the other 67 % accounts for an irreversible shrinkage due to the removal
of interlayer water (Hansen, 1987).
While the source of drying shrinkage in concrete is the paste, a study showed that drying
shrinkage is mainly dependent on the water content in per unit volume of concrete, and it is true
regardless of aggregate source, aggregate gradation, cement content, water-cement ratio, and
curing duration (Maggenti, Knapp, & Fereira, 2013). In other words, as long as water content
remains constant, cement content can vary with a complementing change in aggregate content to
produce a different water-cement ratio (w/c) concrete mixture and drying shrinkage should stay
the same.
ACI committee 209 summarized other factors affecting drying shrinkage; they include aggregate
modulus of elasticity, paste content, chemical admixtures, cement composition, and cementitious
7
materials. Aggregates with high modulus of elasticity can help lower drying shrinkage when
used in concrete due to restraining effect, and if aggregate size is increased and gradation is
optimized to minimize void space being filled by paste, drying shrinkage can be further reduced
(Hadidi & Saadeghvaziri, 2005). The use of water-reducing and high range water-reducing
admixtures may increase shrinkage by 20 % if added at the same water content (ACI Committee
209, 2005). Fine particles generally have higher absorption; hence, high content of fine particles
can increase water demand required to achieve desired slump and, subsequently, increase
shrinkage (ACI Committee 209, 2005). Low sulphate cements and finely ground cement may
have higher shrinkage, and drying shrinkage is more rapid in concretes made with high alumina
cements. The ACI committee also discussed the effects of the three commonly used
supplementary cementing materials (SCMs): the addition of slag and fly ash has no significant
effect on shrinkage and the use of silica fume at a replacement level less than 7.5 % can decrease
shrinkage.
2.2.2.2 Thermal Shrinkage
Thermal shrinkage refers to the contraction that takes place when hydration heat dissipates after
peak temperature is reached. Although all four main mineral compounds in cement react
exothermically with water, alite (tricalcium silicate) and alumina (tricalcium aluminate) generate
the most heat and they react most instantaneously once they are in contact with water. Table 2-1
compares the heat release between different compounds.
Table 2-1: Heat of hydration of pure compounds (Neville & Brooks, 2010)
Compounds Heat of Hydration
J/g Cal/g
Tricalcium Silicate (C3S) 502 120
Dicalcium Silicate (C2S) 260 62
Tricalcium Aluminate (C3A) 867 207
Tetracalcium Aluminoferrite (C4AF). 419 100
According to Neville and Brooks (2010), one-half of the total heat is produced within the first
three days, three-quarters in seven days, and nearly 90 percent in 6 months. Hence, the
temperature in concrete increases as a large amount of heat is being released during the early
age. A peak temperature is reached when the rate of heat dissipation surpasses the heat
production. Changes in volume are results of such temperature fluctuation. Due to the
impracticality of uniform heat dissipation across the concrete body, temperature gradient often
8
exists. If a significant thermal gradient is present when concrete hardens, a zero-stress
temperature gradient is also created as shown in Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1: Development of zero-stress temperature gradient (Mangold, 1994)
According to Mangold (1994), the thermal stress (σ) in concrete can be calculated using the
equation:
� = ����� − ��, Equation 2-3
where:
E =Young’s Modulus of concrete,
αT =coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of concrete,
Tz =zero-stress temperature at the location, and
T =current temperature at the location.
Therefore, as the concrete temperature changes relative to the zero-stress temperature, either
compression or tensile stress is induced depending on the direction of temperature change. Since
the majority of concrete’s volume is the aggregate, CTE of concrete and its thermal stress
development are largely dependent on the properties of the aggregate used. Table 2-2 compares
the coefficient of thermal expansion of concretes composed of various commonly used
aggregates.
9
Table 2-2: Effect of aggregate on coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete (Kosmatka,
Kerkhoff, Panarese, Macleod, & Mcgrath, 2003)
Aggregate type
(from one source)
Coefficient of
thermal expansion,
millionths per oC
Coefficient of
thermal expansion,
millionths per oF
Quartz 11.9 6.6
Sandstone 11.7 6.5
Gravel 10.8 6.0
Granite 9.5 5.3
Basalt 8.6 4.8
Limestone 6.8 3.8
An investigation on Ontario bridge decks found a strong correlation between premature
transverse cracking density and temperature development. Namely, bridge decks with delayed
start of temperature rise and low heat of hydration had low cracking density; whereas, decks with
higher rate of temperature development and higher peak temperature had higher cracking density
(Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 2012).
2.2.2.3 Autogenous Shrinkage
Autogenous shrinkage was first described by C. G. Lyman in 1934, but it was noted to occur
only at very low w/cm that was far beyond the practical range of concrete (Holt, 2001). The
development of superplasticizer made low w/cm concrete readily available, and, today, low
w/cm concrete is often specified for structural reasons. As a result, autogenous shrinkage has
received significant research attention in the recent decade.
Autogenous shrinkage is a macroscopic volume change, and it occurs even when sufficient moist
curing is provided because it does not involve moisture transfer to the environment (Holt, 2005).
The understanding of autogenous shrinkage is often divided into two mechanisms: chemical
shrinkage and self-desiccation. Chemical shrinkage is a result of the reactions between cement
and water, which lead to a volume reduction, and it is the only driving force for autogenous
shrinkage at early ages. According to Holt (2001), chemical shrinkage of each mineral phase can
be calculated using the chemical equations, molecular weights, and molecular densities; the
values are shown in Table 2-3.
10
Table 2-3: Chemical shrinkage for individual cement phases (Holt, 2001)
Mineral Phase Chemical Shrinkage (cm3/g)
C3S 0.0532
C2S 0.0400
C4AF 0.1113
C3A 0.1785
Therefore, if the percentages of each mineral phase in the cement known, chemical shrinkage
(cm3/g) can be calculated using
VCS-TOTAL=0.0532[C3S] + 0.0400[C2S] +0.1113[C4AF] + 0.1785[C3A]. Equation 2-4
However, when sufficient C-S-H is produced to form a skeleton to resist some of the chemical
shrinkage, autogenous shrinkage slows down. Set follows soon after the formation of skeleton,
and capillary system is developed. After which, autogenous shrinkage is gradually taken over by
self-desiccation. Self-desiccation occurs when there is not enough localized water available to
sustain hydration, and water is drawn from capillary pores. Similar to drying shrinkage, menisci
are created in capillary pores, creating large capillary stress on pore walls (as described by
Equation 2-2). However, localized shrinkage takes place, so no stress gradient is created across
the concrete member. Figure 2-2 shows the magnitude of autogenous shrinkage relative to
chemical shrinkage tested using cement paste with a w/c of 0.4.
Figure 2-2: Comparison of autogenous shrinkage and chemical shrinkage (Hammer, 1999)
11
HPC are often made with blended cements containing silica fume, slag, and fly ash because these
SCMs can assist in achieving a denser system. However, chemical shrinkage is more pronounced
in these materials, and their respective water demand is shown in Table 2-4. While the chemical
shrinkage coefficient of cement of 0.07 is acceptable for hydration at room temperature (25 oC),
Bentz et al. (2005) suggested chemical shrinkage for cement is less at higher temperatures, and
for each 10 oC increase in temperature coefficients should be decreased by 0.005 kg water / kg of
cement and increased by 0.005 kg water / kg of cement for each 10 oC decrease.
Table 2-4: Autogenous shrinkage coefficients (Bentz, 2007)
Cementitious Material
Chemical Shrinkage
Coefficient (kg water / kg
cementitious material)
Portland Cement 0.07
Silica Fume 0.22
Slag 0.18
Fly Ash 0.10 – 0.16
2.2.3 Restraint
Transverse cracking in bridge deck occurs not when shrinkage in the bridge deck is taking place,
but when shrinkage movement is restrained by reinforcement and shear connectors. While the
main early-age shrinkage mechanisms were discussed in the previous section, this section
focuses on the restraint conditions that lead to cracking.
A major source of external restraint is at the deck-girder interface. Due to the geometry of most
bridge decks being much longer in one direction than the other, shrinkage is also more
pronounced in the longitudinal direction. When the shrinkage induced tensile stress in the deck
exceeds the tensile strength, cracking takes place, in the direction perpendicular to maximum
shrinkage, to relieve the tensile stress developed. According to Brown et al. (2001), transverse
cracking is more severe in decks that are support by steel girders than by concrete beams. They
explained that the effect is attributed to the inability of the steel to shrinkage with concrete, the
higher elastic modulus of steel, and the distinct difference in thermal properties in these
materials, such as coefficient of thermal expansion and thermal conductivity. Larger girder sizes
and reduction in girder spacing will increase the external restraint on the bridge deck, and, hence,
cracking potential of the deck is increased (Hadidi & Saadeghvaziri, 2005).
12
According to a MTO report (2012), for a continuous span bridge, the deck at the mid support is
more susceptible to cracking because the location has increased rotational rigidity and restrains
the curvatures caused by drying and thermal shrinkage. This promotes simply supported span
design, which does not restrain the bridge curvature caused by shrinkage and allows for uniform
shrinkage stress to uniformly distribute along the deck slab. Similarly, expansion joints are
preferred over integral abutment as it has less rotational rigidity. For reinforcement design, it is
generally accepted that smaller bar size and closer bar spacing can reduce cracking (Ontario
Ministry of Transportation, 2012).
Restraint from shrinkage can also be present internally within the bridge deck. Since some
shrinkage mechanism, drying and thermal shrinkage, are more severe at parts exposure to the
environment, their effects will begin from the surface layer and gradually continues to the core.
When a non-uniform shrinkage takes place across the depth of the bridge deck, a stress gradient
is created putting the surface layer in tension.
2.2.4 Modulus of Elasticity and Creep
The effects of modulus of elasticity and creep have significant influence on the transverse
cracking propensity. Specifically, concretes with high modulus of elasticity will develop higher
tensile stress when restrained shrinkage occurs. On the other hand, creep allows the concrete to
deform in the direction of stress, so restrained shrinkage stress can partially be relieved by creep.
It is generally accepted that the modulus of elasticity increases with increasing compressive
strength. Many prediction models, including EC 2, ACI 209, ACI 363, and BS8110, calculate the
estimated 28 day elasticity of concrete based on the compressive strength and are able to provide
satisfactory results (Megat Johari, Brooks, Kabir, & Rivard, 2011). However, the relation
between the modulus and strength varies with age because concrete modulus develops more
rapidly than strength (Neville & Brooks, 2010). The effect of SCMs on the modulus was found
to be not as significant as their impact on strength, despite of the fact that correlation exists
between strength and elasticity (Megat Johari et al., 2011). According to Neville and Brooks
(2010), due to the volumetric proportion of aggregate in concrete, the modulus of elasticity of
concrete varies with that of the aggregate. For concretes containing aggregates with modulus
higher than that of the cement paste, increasing the volume of aggregate can also increase the
modulus of concrete.
13
Compared to normal concrete, HPC generally has lower creep, which is making it more
susceptible to cracking (Darwin, Browning, Mcleod, Lindquist, & Yuan, 2012). The visco-elastic
nature of concrete allows for stress relief when the material is subjected to constant strain, such
as that caused by restrained shrinkage. Creep is inversely proportional to concrete strength, so
creep decreases as water-cement ratio decreases and as the age of concrete increases, as
illustrated in Figure 2-3. While creep takes place in the cement paste when interlayer water is
being relocated due to constant pressure, the creep in concrete is inversely proportional to the
volumetric fraction of aggregate in concrete.
(A) (B)
Figure 2-3: Effects of (A) water-cement ratio and (B) age of loading on creep (Neville &
Brooks, 2010)
2.2.5 Strength Development
Tensile strength provides resistance to cracking triggered by the tensile stress development due
to restrained shrinkage. It is common to use SCM to achieve higher long term strength of
concrete, but its pozzolanic characteristic may hinder the early-age strength development, which
is critical in preventing premature transverse cracking in bridge decks. In Figure 2-4, Megat
Johari et al. (2011) show the effect of SCMs, including silica fume, fly ash, metakaolin, and slag,
on the rate of strength development when used at various cement replacement levels in the
14
concrete. The strength development prior to seven days is being considered, fly ash and slag are
decreasing the strength development at increasing dosages, yet silica fume and metakaolin are
demonstrating positive effects on early compressive strength development.
(A) (B)
(C) (D)
Figure 2-4: Compressive strength development of (A) silica fume, (B) fly ash, (C)
metakaolin, and (D) slag at different replacement levels (Megat Johari et al., 2011)
2.3 Mitigations through Concrete Mix Design Modifications
2.3.1 Thermal Shrinkage Reduction
The use of set-retarding admixture to control thermal shrinkage is commonly mentioned in the
literature (Brown et al., 2001; Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 2012). The admixture slows
down the hydration reaction and allows for more time for hydration heat to dissipate resulting in
15
lower peak temperatures in concrete. In addition to reducing thermal contraction, set-retarding
admixture can offset some of the strength loss from high temperature curing (ACI Committee
305, 2007). Replacing cement with SCMs such as slag can also reduce the rate of early-age
reaction in concrete. The effect of slag on delaying early-age reaction can be seen in Figure 2-4
(D), which displays higher slag replacement level yields lower early-age strength due to slower
reaction rate.
2.3.2 Capillary Pressure Minimization
Shrinkage reducing admixture (SRA) has demonstrated excellent shrinkage-reducing
performance in many bridge deck applications (Maggenti et al., 2013). The admixture is
introduced into concrete during the time of mixing and is able to reduce the surface tension of
the water that remains in the capillary pores. As shown in Equation 2-2, capillary pressure is
directly proportional to the surface tension of the liquid. While the dosage of two percent by
weight of cementitious was found to be most effective in reducing shrinkage (Lopes, Silva,
Molin, & Filho, 2013), SRA is often used at a dosage between one to two percent. Manufacturer
recommendations should be followed as SRA may cause disruption of the entrained air system
(lowering freeze and thaw resistance), decrease compressive strength, increase absorption, and
increase capillary porosity (Lopes et al., 2013).
2.3.3 Internal Curing
Lightweight aggregate (LWA) is conventionally used in low density concrete applications. Due
to its high porosity and ability to entrain water, LWA has started being introduced into concrete
for the purpose of internal curing. According to Aitcin (1998), the capillary system in the paste
system can become discontinuous when low water-cement ratio is used. Hence, providing moist
curing, even through submersion, to HPC may only be beneficial to the surface layer and will not
ease self-desiccation, and drying of capillary pores leads to the development of capillary pressure
and shrinkage. The pores sizes in LWA are generally greater than those in the capillary system.
Therefore, when pre-saturated LWA is contained in the system, any demand of water, due to
drying or self-desiccation, will draw from LWA, and the capillary system can be avoided from
drying (Bentz & Weiss, 2010).
16
Providing an adequate amount of LWA in the system can increase the achievable degree of
hydration of both cement and pozzolans, and also reduce stress and strain development from
drying of the capillary system. Hence, early-age cracking propensity is reduced. However, too
much LWA can compromise strength. Since higher water-cement ratio concretes can absorb
water from the surrounding, autogenous shrinkage in a discontinuous capillary system is
considered when calculating the amount of LWA to be added (Bentz, Lura, & Roberts, 2005).
The calculation is done by equating the water demand of the hydration mixture to the supply that
is available from the LWA (Bentz & Snyder, 1999), as shown in Equation 2-5.
�� × �� × ���� = � × Φ!"# ×$%&', Equation 2-5
where:
Cf =cement content for concrete mixture (kg/m3);
CS =coefficient of chemical shrinkage for cementitious materials (g of water / g of cement);
αmax =maximum expected degree of hydration of cement (if w/cm below 0.36, αmax =
(w/cm)/0.36, and take as 1 if w/cm > 0.36);
S =degree of saturation of aggregate (0 to 1);
ФLWA =absorption of lightweight aggregate (kg water / kg dry LWA).
The coefficient of chemical shrinkage can be found in Table 2-3. According to Jensen and
Hansen (2001), at low w/cm, hydration stops due to volumetric limitation, that is when all the
available space is taken up by gel water, gel solid, and unhydrated cement. Hence, for w/cm
below 0.36, the maximum expected degree of hydration (αmax) can be estimated using
(w/cm)/0.36, since 100 % hydration is not expected to be achieved. For w/cm between 0.36 to
0.42, two extreme viewpoints exist (illustrated in Figure 2-5): (1) Jensen and Hansen (2001)
suggested providing just enough water to reach 100 % hydration, which means providing enough
entrained water to yield a w/cm of 0.42. In contrary, (2) Bentz et al. (2005) suggested to add
enough entrained water to keep the pores in the cement paste completely saturated, that is by
taking maximum expected degree of hydration (αmax) as 1.0 for w/cm equal to or higher than
0.36. However, the latter was adopted by ASTM C1761 in 2012. Degree of saturation can be
17
taking as 1.0, when minimum of seven days submersion is provided. The absorption of
lightweight aggregate (ФLWA) should be tested as the desorption of completely saturated
aggregate at RH between 92 to 97 % because it is inaccurate to assume all of the water is readily
available to migrate to the hydration paste during curing (Bentz et al., 2005).
Figure 2-5: Comparison between providing entrained water for complete hydration (line)
and for maintaining saturated pores (dots) (Bentz et al., 2005)
When the size of LWA is considered, it is preferred to use fine LWA because it allows for a
better distribution of internal reservoirs, so water is accessible to more materials. In addition, a
minimum submersion period of seven days is generally recommended to ensure complete
saturation of LWA. ASTM made the first standard specification for lightweight aggregate for
internal curing of concrete (ASTM C1761) in 2012.
2.3.4 Cement Paste Reduction
Since the source of concrete shrinkage is the cement paste, shrinkage can be minimized when
paste content is reduced. It has been reported that limiting cement content in concrete to a
maximum of 385 to 390 kg/m3 can effectively reduce the potential of cracking (Riad, Shoukry,
Sosa, & William, 2011). It is generally accepted that using larger aggregate sizes with optimized
18
gradation can reduce gaps between aggregate, and hence lowering the cement paste required to
fill the voids. While increasing aggregate size is simple, there are many gradation optimization
methods available. It is of great interest to the asphalt industry to reduce binder content, as
bitumen is an expensive material. As a result of 50 million dollars research effort by the Strategic
Highway Research Program, Superpave was developed as a new system to specify, test, and
design asphalt materials (NCDOT, 2012), and , in the recent decade, Superpave has become the
standard pavement mix design method in most State transportation departments across United
State (WesTrack Forensic Team, 2001). The aggregate gradation optimization method selected
by Superpave is 0.45 power chart. According to research papers published by Nijoer in the
1940’s, Goode and Lufsey in the 1960’s, and the Asphalt Institute in the 1980’s, maximum
packing density for both gravel and crushed aggregates can be achieved using the 0.45 power
chart method.
The 0.45 power chart is based on an equation, developed by Fuller and Thompson in 1907,
describing maximum density gradation. The equation is
( = )�*+,
, Equation 2-6
Where:
P =percent passing through sieve size “d” by dry mass,
d =sieve size being considered,
D =maximum aggregate size,
n =grading factor adjusting for fineness or coarseness (0.45 is used by Superpave).
On a graph where the x-axis is sieve size raised to the power of n (grading factor value) and y-
axis is percent passing through the sieve size being considered, the maximum density line can be
plotted by connecting a straight line from the origin to the point of maximum aggregate size at
100 % passing (Shilstone, 1990).
Panchalan and Ramakrishman studied the validity of using 0.45 power chart in optimizing
aggregate gradation for HPC through comparing between grading factors of 0.35, 0.40, 0.45,
19
0.50, and 0.55. They found that the HPC prepared with the grading factor of 0.45 had the highest
strength and better workability in comparison to the other mixes.
2.4 Mitigation through Appropriate Construction Practice
2.4.1 Ambient Conditions
The ambient conditions during the time of bridge deck placement can have a large impact on its
cracking propensity. Namely, low relative humidity, high wind speed, and high temperature
increase cracking by promoting evaporation. A nomograph, Figure 2-6, demonstrates the
combined effect of ambient conditions on the rate of evaporation from concrete surface. Hadidi
et al. (2005) suggested that for normal concrete, evaporation rates should be maintained at below
1 kg/m2/h, and for low w/cm concrete it should be maintained below 0.5 kg/m
2/h. CSA 23.1
(2009) specifies severe drying conditions as those having evaporation rates greater than 0.5
kg/m2/h, and additional measures are required to prevent excessive loss of moisture from
concrete surface if evaporation rate is exceeded. According to Virginia Department of
Transportation, for bridge decks overlays containing silica fume the allowable evaporation rate
should be less than 0.025 kg/m2/h. Precautions should be taken when high dosages of pozzolanic
materials and/or high dosage of retarding admixture is used, as they can delay the hydration
reaction and extend the plastic period of concrete making it more vulnerable to cracking.
20
Figure 2-6: Effect of concrete and air temperatures, relative humidity, and wind speed on
the rate of evaporation of surface moisture from concrete (ACI Committee 305, 2007).
In addition to promoting evaporation, high ambient temperature can also accelerate the rate of
reaction of cement. Although increased curing temperature can provide higher early-age
strength, the 28 day strength is often compromised as a result (ACI Committee 305, 2007). More
importantly, the accelerated hydration can lead to higher peak temperature in concrete and
increased thermal contraction. In addition, rapid slump loss and formation of cold joints are
associated with hot weather concreting. Lowering concrete temperature is a practical strategy to
minimize the impact of hot weather concreting. This can be done by cooling the components
21
prior to mixing. Best results can be achieved by cooling aggregate since it occupies majority of
the volume, and replacing crushed ice for batch water has also been proven effective (ACI
Committee 305, 2007). According to Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS) 904
(2012), the concrete temperature for HPC bridge deck placement must be within the range of 10
to 70 oC during the seven days curing period, and the difference between the centre of the deck,
where highest temperature is expected, and the surface cannot exceed 20 oC. Other researchers
have suggested different concrete bridge deck placement temperature requirements to mitigate
transverse cracking; their recommendations are shown in Table 2-5. Also, pouring concrete
during later afternoon or early evening will reduce the thermal stress created because the weather
immediately following placement cools the concrete and the concrete will reach its peak
temperature during the night (McLeod et al., 2009).
Table 2-5: Bridge deck placement temperature recommendations (Hadidi & Saadeghvaziri,
2005)
Researchers/Organization Recommendations
PCA (1970), Krauss and Rogalla (1996) Maximum concrete placement temperature of 27 oC
Cheng and Johnson (1985) Minimum ambient temperature of 7.2 oC
French, Eppers, and Hajjar (1999)
Minimum and maximum ambient temperature of 4 and 32 0C
and reducing temperature difference between the deck and the
girder
Kraus and Rogalla (1996) Concrete temperature of at least 5 to 10
oC cooler than
ambient temperature
Babaei and Purvis (1994), Babaei and
Purvis (1995)
Girder temperature of 12 to 24 oC should be maintained in
cold weather
Babaei and Purvis (1995) Temperature difference of maximum 12 oC for at least 24
hours is recommended
2.4.2 Pour Sequence
According Issa (1999), the best pouring sequence is achieved when the self-weight of the
sequential pour creates minimum curvatures on the previous pours, and this can be done by
placing positive regions first as demonstrated in Figure 2-7. If possible, with the help of set-
accelerating and/or retarding admixture, pour the complete deck at one time and delay set time of
all pours until the whole deck is placed. This allows for forms to deform prior to initial set, and
any change in curvature in the previously poured sections will not cause any damage (Riad et al.,
2011).
22
Figure 2-7: Recommended pouring sequence (Issa, 1999)
2.4.3 Curing
HPC often contains silica fume and low w/cm, so providing adequate curing is critical to reduce
its vulnerability to plastic shrinkage and to allow for proper strength development to resist
restrained stresses. The Ontario Ministry of Transportation has prescribed a seven days curing
procedure for HPC bridge decks (OPSS 904, 2012). In which, moist curing must start within two
to four minutes upon finishing operations, using burlap that has been previously soaked for a
23
minimum of 24 hours. Precautions must be taken to avoid excessive water present on the
concrete surface in forms of drip, puddle, or flow. Burlap should be covered with a layer of
moisture barrier to minimize evaporation. In addition, fog misting should be provided from the
time HPC is deposited until it is covered with burlap to maintain high RH on surface to prevent
plastic shrinkage. All forms should be removed at 24 hours, and the surfaces that were
previously covered by forms are required to be moist cured, using burlap and moisture barrier,
for the rest of the curing period. Hadidi et al. (2005) recommended extending the curing period
to 14 days can be beneficial to the resistance of premature cracking.
24
Chapter 3 Experimental
3.1 Overview
The test program and respective test methods are summarized in Table 3-1. Prior to casting, fresh
properties such as slump, fresh density, and air content were evaluated immediately upon the
completion of mixing, and requirements needed to be met for slump and air content. Mechanical
properties including compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, and static elastic modulus
were tested at various ages to monitor mechanical property developments. Volume change
mechanisms were monitored through linear shrinkage test, autogenous and thermal volume
change test, and restrained shrinkage test. In an attempt to better understand the independent
effect of the heat of hydration on volume change, tests such as coefficient of thermal expansion,
isothermal heat of hydration, and semi-adiabatic heat of hydration tests were conducted. In
addition, the rapid chloride penetration test was conducted to provide an indication of durability
and a comparison against standards such as Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and Ontario
Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS).
25
Table 3-1: Experimental program overview
Test Descriptions
Fresh Properties
Slump (ASTM C143-10)
• Performed for every mix prior to casting
• Required to meet slump range of 100 to
160 mm
Fresh Density (ASTM C138-12) • Performed for every mix prior to
casting
Air Content (ASTM C231-12)
• Performed for every mix prior to
casting
• Required to meet air range of 5 to 8 %
Durability
Rapid Chloride Penetration Test (ASTM
C1202-10) • Tested at ages 28 and 56 days
Electrical Conductivity (ASTM C1760-12) • Tested at ages 28 and 56 days
Mechanical Properties
Compressive Strength (ASTM C39 -10) • Tested at ages 3, 7, 28, and 56 days
Splitting Tensile Strength (ASTM C496-04) • Tested at ages 24, 48, and 72 hours
Static Elastic Modulus (ASTM C 469-10) • Tested at ages 3, 7, 14, and 28 days
Dynamic Modulus (ASTM C215-08) • Tested at ages 1-7, 14, and 28 days
Thermal Properties
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (not
standardized) • Tested at ages 1-7, 14, and 28 days
Isothermal Heat of Hydration (ASTM C1679-
09) • Tested from time of casting to 7 days
Semi-Adiabatic Heat of Hydration (not
standardized) • Tested from time of casting to 7 days
Volume Change
Linear Shrinkage (MTO LS-435 R23, 2006) • Tested from age 7 to 91 days
Autogenous/Thermal Shrinkage Prism Test
(not standardized) • Tested from time of casting to 7 days
Restrained Shrinkage (ASTM C1581-09) • Tested from time of casting to 28 days
26
3.2 Materials for Laboratory Testing
3.2.1 Cementitious Material
All cementitious materials used in this research project were supplied by Holcim (Canada) Inc.
These materials included CSA A3000 General Use (GU) Portland cement, ground granulated
blast furnace slag (GGBFS), and blended GU Portland cement with 8% silica fume (GUbSF8).
Their relative densities are shown in the following table.
Table 3-2: Relative density of cementitious material (values provided by Holcim Canada)
Cementitious Material Relative Density
GU 3.15
GGBFS 2.89
GUbSF8 3.00
3.2.2 Coarse and Fine Aggregates
Coarse aggregates of three different nominal maximum sizes were used in this research project:
25, 19, and 13 mm. Since the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) typically uses coarse
aggregate with maximum nominal size of 19mm for their bridge decks, 19mm aggregate was
selected as the standard size for this research project. All coarse aggregates were supplied by
Holcim Canada. The 19 and 13 mm aggregates were from Dufferin Aggregate’s Milton quarry,
and the 25 mm aggregate was from Dufferin Aggregate’s Carden quarry.
Aggregate gradations were tested in the concrete materials laboratory in the University of
Toronto in accordance with ASTM C136 - 06 Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine
and Coarse Aggregates, and the results, along with the OPSS 1002 (2011) requirements for 19
mm aggregate used in bridge decks, are shown in Table 3-3. Sieve analysis results show that the
19 mm used in this project had percent passing at sieve size 16 mm close to the lower limit
specified by OPSS, and its percent passing was below the specified range for sieve size 9.5 mm.
It was acknowledged that the 19 mm aggregate used for this project was slightly coarser than that
used by the MTO. However, the experiments proceeded with the 19 mm aggregate, as bias in
sieve analysis results could be caused by sampling method and sample size, and no obvious
impacts on workability were found. The gradations of 25 mm, 19 mm, and 13 mm aggregates are
plotted on Figure 3-1.
27
Table 3-3: Coarse aggregate gradations
Sieve Size
(mm)
Percent Passing (%)
OPSS Requirement
for 19 mm Aggregate 25 mm 19 mm 13 mm
37.5 mm - 100 100 100
26.5 mm 100 94 100 100
19 mm 85 - 100 47 90 100
16 mm 65 - 90 22 67 100
12.5 mm - 6 42 98
9.5 mm 20 - 55 1 18 59
6.7 mm - 0 4 17
4.75 mm 0 - 10 0 1 1
2.362 mm - 0 1 1
1.18 mm - 0 1 1
600 µm - 0 0 0
300 µm - 0 0 0
150 µm - 0 0 0
Pan - 0 0 0
Note: The results shown are rounded to the nearest integer and are average values
based on two, three, and three tests for 25mm, 19mm, and 13mm aggregates,
respectively. Individual sieve analysis results are shown in Appendix A.
Table 3-4 shows other relevant parameters required for the development of mix design. Tests
were performed in accordance with ASTM C127 – 07 Standard Test Method for Density,
Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate and ASTM C29 – 09
Standard Test Method for Bulk Density (“Unit Weight”) and Voids in Aggregate.
Table 3-4: Other coarse aggregate parameters required for the design of concrete mixture
25mm 19mm 13mm
Relative Density in SSD 2.688*
2.700 2.725
Bulk Density (Kg/m3) 1528 1530 1497
Absorption (%) 0.530*
1.420 1.235
Note: Experimental values are shown in Appendix B; while some values (*)
were provided by Dufferin Aggregates
There were two types of fine aggregate used in this research project: natural sand and lightweight
aggregate (LWA). Since natural sand is typically used in bridge deck applications by the MTO, it
was also selected as the standard fine aggregate for this project. In one of the mixtures studied in
this project, pre-saturated LWA was used to replace a volume fraction of the natural sand for
internal curing purpose. The natural sand used in this project was supplied by St. Mary’s
Scarborough plant from the Sunderland pit, and the LWA used in this research project was
Haydite Shale Aggregate, supplied by DiGeronimo Aggregate (Ohio, USA).
28
The gradation of the fine aggregate used in this research project was tested in accordance with
ASTM C136 – 06 Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates.
Sieve analysis results and OPSS 1002 (2011) requirements are shown in Table 3-5. As suggested
by the gradations, the natural sand used for this project was within all ranges of requirements
specified in the OPSS 1002 (2011). On the other hand, the LWA appears to be coarser than
specified because of the percent passing on sieve size 2.362 mm. However, the fineness moduli
for both fine aggregates are within the specified range of 2.3 to 3.1 (OPSS 1002, 2011). The
gradations of natural sand and Haydite LWA are plotted on Figure 3-1.
Table 3-5: Fine aggregate gradations
Sieve Size
(mm)
Percent Passing (%)
OPSS Requirement
for Fine Aggregate Sand
Haydite
LWA*
9.5 mm 100 100 100
6.7 mm - 100 100
4.75 mm 95 - 100 99 100
2.362 mm 80 – 100 87 71
1.18 mm 50 – 85 65 48
600 µm 25 – 60 44 33
300 µm 10 – 30 22 23
150 µm 0 – 10 9 15
Pan - 0 0
Fineness
Modulus 2.30 – 3.10 2.75 3.10
Note: Results are rounded to the nearest integer. Experimental values
are shown in Appendix A; while some values (*) were provided by
DiGeronimo Aggregates materials research laboratory.
Table 3-6 shows other parameters required for the development of concrete mix design. The
values were obtained in accordance with ASTM C128 - 07 Standard Test Method for Density,
Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Fine Aggregate and ASTM C1761
Standard Specification for Lightweight Aggregate for Internal Curing of Concrete in the
concrete materials laboratory at the University of Toronto.
Table 3-6: Other fine aggregate parameters required for the design of concrete mixture
Natural Sand Haydite LWA
Relative Density in SSD 2.68 1.87
Absorption (%) 0.64
21.13
Note: Experimental data is shown in Appendix C.
29
Figure 3-1: Aggregate gradations
3.2.3 Chemical Admixtures
All chemical admixtures used in this research project were supplied by Euclid Chemical
Company. Their classifications, compositions, and other properties relevant to mix design are
presented in their data sheets and are listed in Table 3-7.
30
Table 3-7: Chemical admixtures used in experiment
Product ASTM C494
Classification Purpose Chemical Composition (wt %)
Relative
Density
%
Volatile
AIREXTRA - Air Entrainer
> 60
7 - 13
1 – 5
Water
Tall oil fatty acid
Potassium Hydroxide
1.007 85.75
EUCON 37 Type A & F
High Range
Water
Reducing
Admixture
40 - 70
30 - 60
1 - 5
Water
Naphthalene sulfonate
Sodium sulfate
1.2025 55.88
EUCON WR Type A & D Water Reducer
/ Set Retarder
> 60
15 - 40
10 - 30
1 - 5
0.1 - 1
Water
Calcium lignosulfonate
Sodium lignosulfonate
Triethanolamine
Glutaraldehyde
1.185 55.56
EUCON 727 Type D Set Retarder
> 60
15 - 40
10 - 30
< 1
Water
Sodium Gluconate
Sucrose
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
1.160 66.24
EUCON
SRA-XT -
Shrinkage
Reducer
30 - 60
15 - 40
15 - 40
Poly ethylene glycol
mono butyl ether
2-(2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)
ethoxy)ethanol
Tetra ethylene glycol
mono butyl ether
1.030 7.9
Note: Experimental data is shown in Appendix D.
Since the admixture data sheets show a large range of variation in water content for each of the
chemical admixtures, residue by oven drying was performed, in accordance with ASTM C494 –
11 Standard Specifications for chemical Admixtures for Concrete, to obtain percent volatile in
the chemical admixtures samples received; results are shown in the last column of Table 3-7.
3.3 Concrete Mix Designs
A standard MTO HPC (50MPa) bridge deck mix design was used as the control for this project.
The mixture consists of 465 kg of cementitious material per meter cubed and a w/cm of 0.33.
The conventional 35 MPa concrete mix, containing 360 kg of cementitious material and a w/cm
of 0.39, was tested in conjunction with the 50MPa base mixture for comparison purpose. The 35
MPa mixture consists of 360 kg/m3 of cementitious material at a w/cm of 0.39. For cementitious
materials, the 35 MPa mixture uses 75% GU and 25% slag; on the other hand, the 50 MPa
mixture uses 75% GU that was already blended with eight percent silica fume cement (GUb8SF)
and 25% slag.
31
As mentioned in the literature review, the three main contributors to concrete early-age volume
change are drying shrinkage, autogenous shrinkage, and thermal expansion and its subsequent
shrinkage. Five different approaches, each targeting one or more shrinkage mechanisms, were
designed in attempt to mitigate the cracking phenomenon in HPC bridge decks. These
approaches included: controlling hydration heat effects by (1) providing extra set control and (2)
increasing slag replacement; reducing capillary pressure by (3) lowering the surface tension of
water in concrete; maintaining capillary saturation by supplying water for (4) internal curing; and
reducing shrinkage overall by (5) decreasing the paste content per unit volume of concrete.
3.3.1 Providing Extra Set Control
This method was developed to reduce the heat that generates during the hydration process by
delaying the hydration reaction. The set retarding admixture selected was EUCON 727, and its
related properties are described in Table 3-7. The effects of doubling the dosage, from 150 to 300
ml/100kg of cementitious, were observed.
3.3.2 Limiting Hydraulic Reaction
Similar to providing set control, this method was developed to reduce the early-age heat release
by lowering the amount of hydraulic material available for hydration. The amount of slag in the
mix design was increased by 60% by mass, from 25% of total cementitious to 40%. Since the
specific gravity of slag (SG = 2.89) is slightly lower than that of GUb8SF (SG = 3.00), the
increment of slag replacement would reduce the yielding volume of concrete. Therefore, more
sand was added to the mixture to compensate for the volume loss.
3.3.3 Reducing Surface Tension of Water
As previously mentioned, capillary pressure is directly proportional to the surface tension of the
liquid, so reducing the surface tension of water can lower shrinkage due to drying and
autogenous effects. Using shrinkage reducing admixture (SRA) can lower the surface tension of
water in concrete, and EUCON SRA-XT was selected for this research project. Since excessive
dosage can cause problems with the entrained air system and strength, EUCON SRA-XT was
added in a dosage of one percent by mass of cementitious and as a replacement of mixing water,
as recommended by the manufacturer. Due to its replacement for mixing water, the mixture
containing SRA would show a w/cm of 0.32 instead of 0.33.
32
3.3.4 Providing Internal Curing
Introducing pre-saturated fine LWA into concrete can prevent the drying of capillary pores and
enhance the maximum degree of hydration. ASTM C1761–12 Standard Specification for
Lightweight Aggregate for Internal Curing of Concrete provides guidelines for finding
absorption and relative density, desorption at 94 % relative humidity, and the required amount of
lightweight aggregate. The required amount of lightweight aggregate is calculated based on the
demand of water for chemical shrinkage of each cementitious material and the supply of water
by the LWA, as shown in Equation 2-5. Supplementary cementing materials (SCMs) generally
have higher chemical shrinkage than Portland cement, yet ASTM C1761 (2012) suggests it is
acceptable to use the typical value of chemical shrinkage for cement (0.07) for all SCMs, in most
practical application. The mix design developed for this research addresses the chemical
shrinkage of each cementitious material using their respective chemical shrinkage coefficients
shown in Table 2-4. Since the typical HPC mix contains 465 kg of cementitious per meter cube
of concrete, calculations in Appendix E shows the amount of oven-dry LWA required is 224.4
kg. It is critical to note that LWA should be added to concrete mixes as replacements for sand by
volume. Calculation shows 0.1457 m3 of sand should be removed from the typical HPC mixture.
3.3.5 Paste Reduction
Since all the aforementioned shrinkage mechanisms are associated with the cement paste,
reducing the paste content per volume of concrete should decrease the overall shrinkage. In order
to lower paste content, a mixture was developed with increased maximum nominal size of the
coarse aggregate from 19 to 25 mm and the aggregate gradation was optimized by introducing
intermediate aggregate sizes by using the 0.45 Power Chart method (Panchalan & Ramakrishnan,
2007; Shilstone, 1990; WesTrack Forensic Team, 2001).
The 0.45 Power Chart method suggests the aggregate gradation is optimized for maximum
packing if the gradation of the blended aggregate follows the maximum density line shown in
Figure 3-2. The maximum density line is defined by Equation 2-6. For this study, the maximum
sieve size (D) chosen was 37.5 mm and the grading type factor (n) used was 0.45. All mass and
percentage mass values were obtained using oven dried samples unless otherwise specified.
33
Figure 3-2: Blending using 0.45 power chart
Appendix F shows the values used for blending. The Solver function in Excel was utilized to
create a blend that best matched the maximum density line (Anson-Cartwright, 2011). The
objective was to minimize the differences between percent passing values in the blended
aggregate mixture and the maximum density line. Sieve sizes considered were from 150 µm to
37.5 mm. Two blends were created initially; the first blend (Blend #1) was optimized by
minimizing the sum of the squared differences in each sieve size between the maximum density
line and the blended gradation, and the second blend (Blend #2) was optimized by minimizing
the sum of differences, not squared, in each sieve size. The optimization process provided
outputs in percentage of each material needed by dry mass. Results of the two blends were very
similar, and the composition of each blend is shown in Table 3-8. Due to workability concerns
from increased aggregate content, Blend #2 was selected for the new mix design as the sand
content is higher.
34
Table 3-8: Two options of blended aggregate
Materials Blend #1
(% by dry mass)
Blend #2
(% by dry mass)
25mm Aggregate 41.31 40.94
19mm Aggregate 0.00 0.00
13mm Aggregate 20.47 19.58
Natural Sand 38.22 39.48
After having the composition of the blended aggregate, the next step was to determine the
aggregate content in the concrete mix. According to ACI 211.1 (2007), if fineness modulus of
the fine aggregate stays constant and the nominal maximum size of aggregate increases from 19
to 25 mm, the dry-rodded volume of coarse aggregate allowed in a concrete mixture is generally
increased by 8%. To demonstrate, based on the fineness modulus of 2.75 for the sand used in this
project, Figure 3-3 recommends, for nominal maximum size of 19mm, the bulk volume of dry-
rodded coarse aggregate to be 0.625 (interpolated value). If the nominal maximum size of
aggregate was increased to 25 mm, the bulk volume of dry-rodded coarse aggregate would
increase to 0.675 (interpolated value), which is an eight percent increase from 0.625. Since the
control 50 MPa mix design was not developed using the bulk volume of dry-rodded coarse
aggregate of 0.625, it would be inaccurate to use the value of 0.675 to develop the new mix
design. Instead, volume of coarse aggregate was determined from the control mixture and was
increased by eight percent; that is from 0.3926 to 0.4240 m3.
Figure 3-3: Bulk volume of coarse aggregate per unit volume of concrete (ACI Committee
211.1, 2007)
35
Since coarse aggregate is generally considered as those above sieve size 4.75 mm, only 25, 19,
and 13 mm aggregate were used to fill the volume of 0.4240 m3. Using the target blended
aggregate proportions (Blend #2) shown in Table 3-8, the blend of coarse aggregate consists of
67.75 % of 25 mm aggregate and 32.35 % of 13 mm aggregate. Using the relative densities
shown in Table 3-4, 768.6 kg of 25 mm aggregate and 367.576 kg of 13 mm aggregate per meter
cubed are required to obtain the volume of 0.4240 m3. Using the target blended aggregate
proportion (Blend #2) shown in Table 3-8, the dry mass of sand required was found to be 741.1
kg per meter cube, occupying a volume of 0.2783 m3. Comparing to the 50 MPa control mixture,
the total volume of aggregate, sand and coarse, was increased by 0.0788 m3 from 0.6235 to
0.7023 m3. Hence, the paste volume should also decrease by 0.0788 m
3 in order to main the same
volume of fresh density; that is from 0.3115 to 0.2327 m3.The mass of GUb8SF, slag, and water
required are 260.7, 86.9, and 115.8 kg, respectively. The w/cm was maintained the same as the
50 MPa control mix at 0.33, and the GUb8SF content reduced from 349.0 to 260.7 kg/m3;
accounting for a 25.29% reduction.
3.3.6 Nomenclature
As previously mentioned, seven different concrete mix designs were developed and tested in this
research project, and the labeling system is shown in Table 3-9.
36
Table 3-9: Naming system for mix designs
Mix ID Descriptions
35MPa-Con
• Conventional mix design used for bridge deck constructions
• 0.39 w/cm with 360 kg/m3 of cementitious, which consists of 75% GU and 25%
slag
50Mpa-Con
• Typical high performance concrete mix design used for bridge deck
constructions.
• 0.33 w/cm with 465 kg/m3 of cementitious, which consists of 75% GUb8SF and
25% slag
• Suspected of having higher cracking potentials compared to 35MPa-Con
50MPa-Ret
• 0.33 w/cm with 465 kg/m3 of cementitious, which consists of 75% GUb8SF and
25% slag
• Provided extra set control by doubling the dosage of set retarder from 150 to 300
ml/100 kg of cementitious
• Aimed to control early-age thermal effects
50Mpa-40S
• 0.33 w/cm with 465 kg/m3 of cementitious, which consists of 60% GUb8SF and
40% slag
• Aimed to control early-age thermal effects
50MPa-SRA
• 0.23 w/cm with 465 kg/m3 of cementitious, which consists of 75% GUb8SF and
25% slag
• Provided shrinkage reducing admixture at a dosage of 1 kg/100 kg of
cementitious
• Aimed to reduce capillary forces that take place in drying
50MPa-LWA
• 0.33 w/cm with 465 kg/m3 of cementitious, which consists of 75% GUb8SF and
25% slag
• Provided pre-saturated fine LWA for internal curing at 63% replacement by
volume of sand
• Aimed to control self-desiccation
50MPa-Bld
• 0.33 w/cm with 347.62 kg/m3 of cementitious, which consists of 75% GUb8SF
and 25% slag
• Provided 25.30% paste reduction by increasing nominal maximum aggregate
size and optimization gradation
• Aimed to minimize overall shrinkage associated with the paste system
A detailed mix design summary can be found in Table 3-10. In which, all mass values for
aggregates are provided in saturated surface dry (SSD) condition, and dosages for
superplasticizer (Eucon 37) and air entraining agent (Eucon Airextra) varied because they were
adjusted according to slump and air measurements. Appendix G summarizes the fresh properties,
admixture dosages, and corrected w/cm for all test specimens. The w/cm was corrected based on
the amounts of chemical admixtures added and their respective water contents (shown in Table
3-7), and the fresh air content was corrected by subtracting the corresponding aggregate
correction factors (shown in Table 3-11).
37
Table 3-10: Concrete mix design summary
Mix ID
CONSTITUENTS 35MPa
-Con
50MPa
-Con
50MPa
-SRA
50MPa
-40S
50MPa
-Ret
50MPa
-LWA
50MPa-
Bld
GU Cement (kg/m3) 270 - - - - - -
GUb8SF (kg/m3) N/A 349 349 279 349 349 260.7
Slag (kg/m3) 90 116 116 186 116 116 86.7
Water (kg/m3) 142 155 150.4 155 155 155 115.8
25mm Aggregate (kg/m3) - - - - - - 772.6
19mm Aggregate (kg/m3) 1065 1060 1060 1060 1060 1060 -
13mm Aggregate (kg/m3) - - - - - - 372.1
Sand (kg/m3) 755 618.9 631.4 616.5 618.9 229 745.8
LWA (kg/m3) - - - - - 272 -
ADMIXTURES
Water Reducer:
Eucon WR (ml/100kg) 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
Retarder:
Eucon 727 (ml/100kg) - 150 150 150 300 150 150
SRA:
Eucon SRA-XT (ml/100kg) - - 981 - - - -
Superplasticizer:
Eucon 37 (ml/100kg)
500
~
1000
700
~
1350
600
~
900
650
~
1150
1200
~
3050
950
~
1400
1200
~
2800
Air Entrainer:
Eucon Airextra (ml/100kg)
50
~
100
85
~
300
90
~
350
80
~
320
70
~
385
300
~
370
310
~
370
Note: All aggregate masses are specified in SSD condition, and the dosages of superplasticizer
and air entrainer varied depending on the slump and air measurements.
3.4 Mixing Procedures
The day before mixing, coarse aggregates were rinsed in perforated buckets to remove finer
particles adhered to aggregate surface and drained for approximately six hours as shown in
Figure 3-4. Natural sand were also collected a day prior to mixing and stored in sealed buckets
for approximately six hours to allow for moisture to even distribute. On the other hand, LWA
was pre-saturated in sealed buckets for a minimum of seven days prior to mixing to ensure
maximum saturation was achieved. As demonstrated in Figure 3-5, one day before mixing, LWA
was drained on a pan raised at an angle, and the top was covered with plastic to prevent
evaporation. A sample was taken from each aggregate at the end of the day prior to mixing for
moisture measurement, and sample sizes were 4, 2, 1 kg for coarse aggregate, sand, and LWA,
respectively.
38
Figure 3-4: Saturation of coarse aggregate
Figure 3-5: Preparation of LWA
39
ASTM C192 – 07 Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the
Laboratory was followed as the standard mixing procedure in this project. All materials were
measured and weighed immediately before mixing, and the addition of constituents and
admixtures is as follows:
1. Add all aggregates with half of the mixing water, which is premixed with air entraining
agent, and mix for one minute.
2. Add all of the cementitious materials and the second half of the water, which is premixed
with water reducer, and start timing for three minutes of mixing.
3. Superplasticizer and retarder, if any, are added as soon as the three-minute mixing starts.
4. After three minutes of mixing is finished, allow mixture to rest for two minutes.
5. Start final mixing of two minutes.
6. If shrinkage reducing admixture is used, add immediately after the final two minutes of
mixing starts.
7. End of mixing, and the mixture is ready for fresh property tests.
3.5 Fresh Properties
Immediately after the completion of concrete mixing, slump, fresh density, and air content were
tested for each mixture. Each mixture was required to pass requirements for slump and air
content in order to start casting. The slump test was done within 5 to 10 minutes after mixing,
followed by fresh density within 10 to 15 minutes. Finally, air content test was done within 15 to
20 minutes after mixing.
According to CSA A23.1 (2009), concretes used for bridge decks are under exposure class C-1,
which is structurally reinforced concrete exposed to chlorides with or without freezing and
thawing conditions, and HPC is under the C-XL exposure class, which is structurally reinforced
concrete exposed to chloride or other severe environments with or without freezing and thawing
conditions, with high durability performance expectations than exposure class C-1. The standard
recommends a range of five to eight percent for fresh air content. In Clause 4.3.2.4.2, the
40
standard also indicates when the specified slump is 80 to 180 mm, the allowable variation shall
be ± 30 mm. A target slump of 130 mm was selected, and therefore the allowable range was
from 100 to 160 mm.
There were cases where the fresh mixture exceeded the target slump and reached as high as 180
mm. The mixture was accepted as long as no segregation was taking place. If slump did not meet
the minimum requirement of 100 mm at the first try, one time remixing was allowed with
additional superplasticizer. However, if air content did not meet requirement of five percent at
first try, the mixture was discarded.
3.5.1 Slump
Slump tests were performed in accordance with ASTM C143 – 10 Standard Test Method for
Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete. Slump cone was dampened and stabilized on top of a flat
wooden board by applying pressure on two foot pieces. The cone was filled in three layers of
approximately equal volumes, and each layer was rodded 25 times using 16 mm tamping rod.
After removing excessive material from the top with tamping rod in sawing motion, the cone was
lifted vertically over five seconds. The slump was determined as the difference between the
displaced height of fresh concrete and the top of the slump cone.
3.5.2 Fresh Density
Fresh density tests were performed in conformance with ASTM C138 – 12 Standard Test
Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete. The air
meter container was used for this test, and it has a capacity of 7.03 liters. The container was
filled with concrete in three layers of equal volumes. After each layer, it was rodded 25 times
with a 16 mm tamping rod and tapped on the side 10 - 15 times with a mallet to eliminate
entrapped air bubbles. After striking off excessive material in a sawing motion, the mass was
measured and subtracted by the known mass of the container to obtain mass of concrete.
3.5.3 Air Content
ASTM C231 – 10 Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the
Pressure Method was followed in obtaining air content for fresh concrete. The procedure of
filling was similar to that in fresh density test. In fact, for the mixtures that had fresh density
41
performed, the same material was left in the container, undisturbed, for fresh air content testing.
The true concrete air content was determined by subtracting the test values by the predetermined
aggregate correction factors shown in Table 3-11.
Table 3-11: Aggregate correction factors for fresh air content measurements
Mix ID
Correction
Factor
(%)
35MPa-Con 1
50MPa-Con, 50MPa-Ret,
50MPa-40S, 50MPa-SRA 0.9
50MPa-LWA 1.1
50MPa-Bld 0.5
3.6 Casting and Testing Procedures
Concrete was used for casting only after meeting fresh property test requirements. Casting and
curing procedures for cylinders and prisms followed ASTM C192 – 07 Standard Practice for
Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory. Some casting and testing
procedures are elaborated in the following sections, especially those tests that are not
standardized.
3.6.1 Cylinders
All cylinders tested in this project were 100 mm in diameter and 200 mm in height. Cylinder
specimens were used for tests including compressive strength (ASTM Standard C39, 2010), split
tensile strength (ASTM Standard C496, 2004), rapid chloride penetration test (RCPT) (ASTM
Standard C1202, 2010), bulk electrical conductivity (ASTM Standard C1760, 2012), and static
modulus of elasticity (ASTM Standard C469, 2010). Prior to casting, a thin layer of oil was
applied to the inner surface of the cylinder moulds. The moulds were filled with fresh concrete in
three equal layers. After each layer was filled, 25 times of rodding was provided using 10 mm
tamping rod and 20 times of tapping on the outer mould was provided to eliminate entrapped air.
Excessive material on top of the mould was removed using a sawing motion with the tamping
rod. Finally, caps were placed on cylinder moulds to prevent evaporation and maintain circular
shape. The cylinders were demoulded after 24 hours and stored in a moist room until tested. For
42
RCPT and bulk electrical conductivity test, two 50 mm high samples were extracted from one
cylinder on the day of testing.
3.6.2 Prisms
All prisms tested in this project had dimensions of approximately 80 × 80 × 280 mm. Prism
specimens were required for tests including linear shrinkage (MTO LS-435 R23, 2006), dynamic
modulus (ASTM Standard C215, 2008), and coefficient of thermal expansion. Prior to casting, a
thin layer of oil was applied to the inner surface of the prism moulds and two measuring studs
were installed at both ends of each prism. The inner distance between each pair of measuring
studs was measured and was used as gauge length in strain calculations. The moulds were filled
in two equal layers. Each layer was rodded 30 times and compacted by slightly lifting and
dropping one end of the mould 20 times on each side to eliminate entrapped air. Immediate after
surface finishing, specimens were covered with moist burlap and allowed to cure for 24 hours
prior to demoulding. After demoulding, specimens were cured in lime water (3 grams calcium
hydroxide / 1 kg of water) until tested.
The coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) test was only performed for mixtures having distinct
aggregate contents. CTE for 35MPa-Con, 50MPa-Con, and 50MPa-Bld were tested at ages of
one to seven days, 14 days, and 28 days, and CTE for 50MPa-LWA was tested at 28 days. The
result for 50MPa-Con was assumed to be similar to 50MPa-Ret, 50MPa-40S, and 50MPa-SRA
because of their similarities in aggregate content. For each mixture, a set of three prisms were
used, and a fourth prism was made with a temperature measuring device embedded in the center.
All four prisms were submerged in a bucket of water in room temperature, approximately 23 oC.
When temperature in the fourth prism stabilizes, temperature was recorded and length readings
were taken for the other three prisms. All four prisms were then immediately submerged in a
preheated lime water bath at approximately 65 oC. It was found that the rate of temperature
increase slowed down significantly after about six hours of hot water bath, and that was the time
when the second readings was taken for temperature and prism lengths. Then prisms were stored
in room temperature lime water bath until next reading. Equation 3-1 was used to calculate CTE.
��� = -. − -/-��. − �/�
, Equation 3-1
43
where:
L1 = length reading in room temperature (mm),
L2 = length reading after submerged in hot bath (mm),
L = gauge length between embedded metal studs (usually 250 mm),
T1 = temperature reading in room temperature from the fourth prism (oC), and
T2 = temperature reading in room temperature from the fourth prism (oC).
Prisms were demoulded at approximately 20 hours after water-cement contact, and the first
reading after demoulding was taken at least one hour after submersion in room temperature lime
water. It was acknowledged that this test method would only provide an indication of CTE for
the ages tested as the hot water bath could significantly accelerate the rate of hydration.
(A) (B)
Figure 3-6: CTE (A) prisms in room temperature and (B) prisms in hot bath
3.6.3 Combined Autogenous and Thermal Test Prisms
The dimensions of the test specimens were 370 × 75 × 75 mm, which had a smallest dimension
being exactly three times bigger than the largest maximum nominal size of aggregate used in this
project, 25 mm. The set-up, shown in Figure 3-7, was made of wood and consisted of two main
44
portions: a mould for two prism specimens and anchors for linear variable differential
transformers (LVDT). On the inside of the prism moulds is a layer of bonded Teflon® to provide
a smooth surface and reduce friction on specimens. To further minimize friction at the specimen
and mould interface, a layer of Unival® multipurpose extreme pressure grease was applied on
top of the Teflon® finish, and a layer of plastic sheet was placed on top on the grease. Prior to
casting, a thin layer of demoulding oil was applied on the plastic layer. At each end of the inner
mould, a half an inch thick layer of StyrofoamTM
and Plexiglas® were placed to allow for
expansion of the specimen. After all parts were in place and lubricated, gauge lengths between
the embedded ends of the studs were measured for strain calculations. Clips with rubber tips
were placed at the other ends of the measuring stud on the outside of the mould to hold the studs
in place until LVDTs were attached.
Figure 3-7: Autogenous and thermal shrinkage test set-up
This test was designed to observe the early-age volume change behavior of concrete since the
time of water-cement contact (zero maturity). Due to the distance between mixing location and
test set-up, the start of testing period was inevitably delayed. However, the concrete was not
expected to have developed enough structure in the first hour to be of concern. The test was
started within approximately an hour after mixing. The compacting procedure used was similar
to that for linear shrinkage prisms. The mould was filled in two layers. Each layer was rodded 30
times with a 10 mm tamping rod, and each end of the mould was lightly lifted and dropped 25
times. After finishing the surface, a temperature measuring device was inserted into the center of
each prism to monitor the heat of hydration of each prism. The top surfaces of the prisms were
45
completely covered with a sealed bag containing dampened towels to prevent drying from the
surface. Finally, LVDTs were anchored at the end of each measuring stud to monitor movements
for seven days at five minute intervals between readings, as shown in Figure 3-8.
Spring force was a concern during the selection of LVDTs, as the test begins while the concrete
is still in plastic state, the concrete may not have developed enough hydration solids to resist the
spring force applied on the measuring studs. The LVDT selected for this project was Solartron®
feather touch digital probe model DT/10/S20. This model has a tip force of 31 grams, which is
significantly smaller than that provided by other models available on the market (generally above
100 grams). However, it was inevitable that the measuring studs were disturbed at the time of
LVDT placements. Hence, the initial readings, until the time of set, from each LVDT probe was
used to adjust the gauge length of the specimens.
(A) (B)
Figure 3-8: LVDT (A) probes and (B) anchoring
3.6.4 Restrained Shrinkage Test
The test set-up and procedure used for restrained shrinkage test was modified from ASTM
C1581 – 09 Standard Test Method for Determining Age at Cracking and Induced Tensile Stress
Characteristics of Mortar and Concrete under Restrained Shrinkage. The standard was modified
because it specifies the maximum nominal size of coarse aggregate cannot be larger than 13 mm,
which was a limitation for this project as a maximum nominal size of 25 mm was used.
Therefore, the outer diameter of the concrete ring was increased, from 405 to 508 mm, providing
a minimum cross sectional dimension of 89 mm, which was more than three times bigger than
46
the maximum nominal size of the largest aggregate used in the project. The material used for the
outer ring was SONOTUBE®. The dimensions of the inner ring remained the same as specified
in ASTM C1581 (2009) with an outer diameter of 330 mm, height of 152 mm, and wall
thickness of 13 mm. On the inside of the steel ring, four TML FLA-5-11 strain gauges were
attached at mid height with longitudinal direction along the perimeter. The base of the mould
was made of wood with a layer of bonded Teflon® on top. Figure 3-9 shows the test set-up at
various stages.
Prior to casting, the mould was prepared with a layer of plastic sheet placed on top of the
Teflon®, and a layer of Unival® multipurpose extreme pressure grease was applied on top of the
plastic sheet, which was then covered with another layer of plastic sheet. Both the inner and
outer ring were held in place using steel angles screwed down to the base. One day before
casting, the bottom of the outer ring was sealed with silicone sealant from the inside to prevent
leakage during casting. Silicone was not used for the inner ring as it might provide impediment
to shrinkage movement of the steel ring. A thin layer of demoulding oil was applied inside the
mould to provide extra lubrication and ease of SONOTUBE® removal.
47
(A) (B)
(C) (D)
Figure 3-9: Restrained shrinkage ring set-up during (A) base preparation, (B) mould
preparation, (C) after casting, and (D) exposed to drying
During casting, the mould was placed on a vibrating table and filled in two layers. Each layer
was rodded 70 times with a 16 mm tamping rod. After rodding, the vibrating table was turned on
until holes from rodding disappeared. Once surface finishing was completed, a temperature
measuring device was inserted into the centre of the cross section for each ring to monitor the
heat of hydration. The whole specimen was transported to the testing room with temperature and
RH maintained at approximately 23 oC and 50 %, respectively. Once the specimen was in place
for testing, all stabilizing means provided for the outer and inner rings were removed and strain
gauges were connected to the data acquisition system, ICPCON I-7016 made by ICP DAS. Each
strain gauge was read independently in a quarter-bridge connection using a wheatstone bridge
48
set-up. The reading frequency was set to 10 minutes and the test ran for 28 days for each ring.
The surface of the specimen was completely covered with a plastic bag containing dampened
towels for curing. At the age of 24 hours, the curing plastic bag was removed and a layer of
paraffin wax was applied on the top surface of the concrete to prevent evaporation throughout
the testing period. The outer surface of the concrete ring was exposed to drying by the removal
of SONOTUBE®.
3.6.5 Isothermal Heat of Hydration Test
Testing for isothermal heat of hydration was done in accordance with ASTM C1679 – 09
Standard Practice for Measuring Hydration Kinetics of Hydraulic Cementitious Mixtures Using
Isothermal Calorimetry, and the baseline temperature was set to 23 oC. Calmetrix I-CAL 8000
was used for this experiment. As shown in Figure 3-10, the equipment has eight channels, and
each channel accepts a specimen contained in a 125 ml plastic cup. Since the sample size is
relatively small for concrete specimens, three specimens from each mixture were tested. To
ensure consistency, 250 grams was chosen as a standard sample size for this project. The test
duration was seven days, and readings were taken six minutes apart. Due to the distance between
mixing and test locations, the start time of the test was inevitably delayed. The approach taken
was to start running the test equipment prior to mixing and placing the specimens in the channels
at exactly 50 minutes after the program had started running. Time of mixing was recorded so
data could be corrected to begin at zero maturity. It was acknowledged that the sample size of
125 ml allowed in this test was small for concrete, especially when aggregate with maximum
nominal size of 25 mm was used, as result could vary depending on how much paste or
aggregate was selected during sampling.
49
(A) (B)
Figure 3-10: Isothermal calorimetry (A) set-up and (B) specimen container
3.6.6 Semi-Adiabatic Heat of Hydration Test
The equipment used for this test was SURE CURE manufactured by PRODUCT
ENGINEERING as shown in Figure 3-11. The equipment accepts a sample of 6 liters in volume,
and it contains two temperature sensors: one located in the centre of the chamber and one on the
outside. There is also an embedded heater on the outside, which, as the temperature rises in the
centre, would heat up the specimen from the outside to the core temperature. As a result, mass
concrete condition can be simulated.
Prior to casting, the chamber was oiled with demoulding agent and a plastic bag was placed on
top. One more layer of demoulding agent was applied on the inside of the plastic bag before
casting. The chamber was filled with concrete in two layers. Each layer was rodded 25 times
with a 16 mm tamping rod and was compacted by slightly lifting and dropping the edge ten
times. This test ran for seven days, and readings were taken six minutes apart.
50
(A) (B)
Figure 3-11: SURE CURE (A) test set-up and (B) casting
51
Chapter 4 Results
4.1 Fresh Density
Fresh density, relative yield, and cement content results are shown in Table 4-1. As mentioned
previously, fresh densities were measured in accordance with ASTM C138 (2012), and the air
meter bowl was used as the volume measure. As the test was only adopted later in the project,
results are not available for all batches. Two to three fresh density values were averaged for each
of the seven mix designs. Raw experimental data can be found in Appendix H.
Table 4-1: Fresh densities, relative yields, and actual cement contents
MIX ID Fresh Density
(kg/m3) Relative Yield
Design
Cementitious
Content (kg/m3)
Actual
Cementitious
Content (kg/m3)
35MPa-CON 2324 1.00 360 360.0
50MPa-CON 2368 0.97 465 477.8
50MPa-Ret 2350 0.98 465 474.2
50MPa-40S 2345 0.98 465 473.7
50MPa-SRA 2355 0.98 465 472.8
50MPa-LWA 2245 0.97 465 477.4
50MPa-Bld 2394 0.98 347.4 352.8
4.2 Durability
The ASTM C1202 (2010) RPCT was performed to provide an indication of concrete durability.
Charge passed and conductivity results are shown in Table 4-2. RCPT was performed for all
seven mix designs at the ages of 28 and 56 days. Two 50 mm thick specimens were extracted
from one 100×200 mm cylinder and tested at each age. Every specimen was vacuum saturated
one day prior to testing. Specimens and water were placed under vacuum independently for three
hours, and the specimens were submerged in the de-aired water and the vacuum maintained for
another hour. The current passing at 1 minute was recorded and used to calculate conductivity of
the specimen in accordance with ASTM C1760 (2012). Individual experimental data, including
currents at 1 minute, values of charge passed and conductivity, and dimensions of specimens,
can be found in Appendix I.
52
Table 4-2: RCPT and conductivity results
28 Days 56 Days
MIX ID Charge Passed
(coulomb)
Conductivity
Based on
Current at 1
Min (mS/m)
Charge Passed
(coulomb)
Conductivity
Based on
Current at 1
Min (mS/m)
35MPa-Con 1082 5.5 980 5.3
50MPa-Con 325 1.6 286 1.5
50MPa-Ret 271 1.3 265 1.3
50MPa-40S 330 1.7 282 1.4
50MPa-SRA 232 1.1 240 1.2
50MPa-LWA 473 2.9 380 2.2
50MPa-Bld 306 1.4 256 1.3
4.3 Mechanical Properties
4.3.1 Compressive Strength
Compressive strength results are shown in Table 4-3. All strengths were tested in accordance
with ASTM C39 (2010) at the ages of 3, 7, 28, and 56 days. Two cylinders were tested at each
age for each mix design, and the average of the two was taken as the final result. Individual
cylinder compressive strengths can be found in Appendix J.
Table 4-3: Cylinder compressive strengths
Compressive Strength (MPa)
MIX ID 3 Days 7 Days 28 Days 56 Days
35MPa-Con 32.4 42.2 49.3 52.9
50MPa-Con 48.1 62.2 72.4 74.7
50MPa-Ret 46.6 63.8 77.2 81.1
50MPa-40S 40.5 60.4 76.4 78.4
50MPa-SRA 40.2 52.2 65.4 67.5
50MPa-LWA 47.5 53.9 75.5 72.7
50MPa-Bld 44.5 57.6 72.5 76.6
4.3.2 Splitting Tensile Strength
Splitting tensile strength results are shown in Table 4-4. All seven mix designs were tested for
splitting tensile strength in accordance with ASTM C496 (2004) at the ages of 1, 2, and 3 days.
Two cylinders from each mix design were tested at each age, and the average of the two was
taken as the final result. Peak applied loads and individual splitting tensile strengths can be found
in Appendix K.
53
Table 4-4: Splitting tensile strengths
Splitting Tensile Strength (MPa)
MIX ID 1 Day 2 Days 3 Days
35MPa-Con 2.11 2.53 2.91
50MPa-Con 3.20 3.28 4.34
50MPa-Ret 2.64 3.32 3.96
50MPa-40S 2.53 2.98 4.49
50MPa-SRA 2.05 2.85 3.77
50MPa-LWA 3.00 3.30 3.63
50MPa-Bld 2.33 3.73 4.19
4.3.3 Static Young’s Modulus of Elasticity
Static modulus of elasticity results are shown in Table 4-5. All concretes were tested in
accordance with ASTM C469 (2010) at the ages of 3, 7, 14, and 28 days. Cylinder ends were
ground at the age of 3 days, just prior to the first time of testing. During each test, an initial
loading (40 % of the ultimate load) was applied to each specimen to ensure the compressometer
was installed correctly and gauges were running properly. The compressometer had a
predetermined gauge length of 100 mm, which is larger than three times the maximum aggregate
size in all concretes tested, as specified by the ASTM standard. Two test cycles were performed
on each specimen. After testing, the specimens were stored in a moist curing room until the next
test age or discarded after testing at the age of 28 days. During each cycle, four stress and strain
readings were recorded with the maximum stress being 40 % of the ultimate. A line of best fit
was plotted through the four points, and the static modulus was calculated as the slope of the line
of best fit. Two to three cylinders were tested for each mix design. The average of all test cycles
was taken as the final result. Experimental data, including cylinder dimensions, strain and stress
readings, can be found in Appendix L.
Table 4-5: Static Young’s moduli of elasticity
Static Modulus of Elasticity (GPa)
MIX ID 3 Days 7 Days 14 Days 28 Days
35MPa-Con 33.8 36.1 38.6 41.8
50MPa-Con 33.3 37.3 40.3 44.0
50MPa-Ret 32.0 37.1 39.0 40.6
50MPa-40S 35.0 37.0 39.6 42.8
50MPa-SRA 32.3 36.2 39.9 39.8
50MPa-LWA 25.3 30.4 31.0 32.9
50MPa-Bld 35.9 39.2 42.6 44.9
54
4.3.4 Dynamic Young’s Modulus of Elasticity
Dynamic modulus results are shown in Table 4-6. The test was performed for all seven mix
designs in accordance with ASTM C215 (2008). The specimens were tested at the ages of 1 to 7,
14, and 28 days. At each age, resonant frequency and mass were recorded and were used to
calculate the dynamic modulus. Three specimens were tested for each mix design, and the
average of the three was taken as the final result. Individual experimental data, including
fundamental frequencies, mass measurements, and dimensions of specimens, can be found in
Appendix M.
Table 4-6: Dynamic Young's moduli of elasticity
Dynamic Modulus (GPa)
1 Day 2 Days 3 Days 4 Days 5 Days 6 Days 7 Days 14 Days 28 Days
35MPa-Con 34.7 38.1 39.1 41.1 41.6 42.4 42.9 45.9 47.6
50MPa-Con 34.2 36.8 39.0 39.9 40.8 41.5 42.5 44.5 45.4
50MPa-Ret 34.0 37.6 39.3 40.9 41.4 42.4 42.7 45.0 45.8
50MPa-40S 35.1 39.3 43.0 44.0 45.0 45.7 46.5 49.0 50.6
50MPa-SRA 26.2 32.5 34.8 35.7 36.6 37.2 37.7 39.0 40.8
50MPa-LWA 38.5 43.0 46.2 47.0 47.9 48.3 49.1 51.5 53.3
50MPa-Bld 38.3 42.3 44.1 44.8 45.6 46.0 46.5 47.7 48.5
4.4 Thermal Properties
4.4.1 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
CTE results are shown in Table 4-7. The CTE test was performed for 35MPa-Con, 50MPa-Con,
and 50MPa-Bld mixtures at the ages of 1-7, 14, and 28 days. CTE of 50MPa-LWA was also
performed at the age of 28 days. CTE for 50MPa-Con was assumed to be the same as 50MPa-
Ret, 50MPa-40S, and 50MPa-SRA as they had very similar aggregate compositions. Three
prisms were tested for each mix design, and the average of the three was taken as the final result.
Experimental data, including differences between the comparator reading of the specimens and
the reference bar (CRDs), temperature readings, and mass measurements, can be found in
Appendix N.
55
Table 4-7: Coefficient of thermal expansions
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (10-6
/oC)
1 Day 2 Days 3 Days 4 Days 5 Days 6 Days 7 Days 14 Days 28 Days
35MPa-Con 10.91 10.63 10.81 11.95 10.39 11.51 11.45 10.82 10.92
50MPa-Con 11.25 12.19 11.39 10.46 11.17 11.76 12.19 13.91 11.58
50MPa-Bld 8.67 10.10 9.91 8.87 8.48 10.13 10.64 12.48 9.28
50MPa-LWA - - - - - - - - 9.08
4.4.2 Isothermal Calorimetry
The peak of heat evolution, its corresponding time, and the total heat evolved are shown in Table
4-8. Isothermal calorimetry was performed for all seven mix designs in accordance with ASTM
C1679 (2009), and 23 oC was used as the temperature baseline for all tests. For each mix design,
three 250 g samples were tested for seven days, and the average of three was taken as the final
result. Due to technical difficulties, one of the three channels was automatically terminated
before the test period was over. This led to only two readings were recorded near the end, and it
happened to 35MPa-Con, 50MPa-Con, 50MPa-Ret, and 50MPa-40S. Individual experimental
results can be found in Appendix O.
Table 4-8: Peak heat evolutions
MIX ID
Peak Heat Evolution
(mW / g of
cementitious)
Time of Peak Heat
Evolution (hours)
Total Heat Evolved
(J / g of cementitious)
35MPa-Con 4.49 15.3 208
50MPa-Con 5.93 12.4 253
50MPa-Ret 4.81 17.2 220
50MPa-40S 3.92 13.5 201
50MPa-SRA 4.09 16.4 229
50MPa-LWA 5.08 14.5 265
50MPa-Bld 3.82 13.7 177
4.4.3 Semi-Adiabatic Calorimetry
Peak temperatures and their corresponding times of initial appearance obtained from semi-
adiabatic calorimetry are shown in Table 4-9. The test was performed for all seven mix designs,
and the test period was 7 days. Individual experimental results can be found in Appendix P.
56
Table 4-9: Peak temperatures in semi-adiabatic chamber
MIX ID Peak Temperature (oC) Time of Peak
Temperature (hours)
35MPa-Con 55.2 43.0
50MPa-Con 60.2 29.1
50MPa-Ret 60.2 36.7
50MPa-40S 58.7 36.5
50MPa-SRA 60.3 33.7
50MPa-LWA 63.0 37.6
50MPa-Bld 52.6 38.4
4.5 Volume Change
4.5.1 Linear Drying Shrinkage
Linear drying shrinkage results using the MTO LS-435 R23 (2006) test, until the age of 91 days,
are shown in Table 4-10. The initial difference between the comparator reading of the specimens
and the reference bar (CRD) was taken at the age of 7 days, as soon as the wet curing period
finished. At each test age, mass and CRD were measured and recorded for each specimen.
Experimental data, including CRDs, mass measurements, and individual strains, can be found in
Appendix Q.
Table 4-10: Linear drying shrinkage (%) after 7 days wet curing
Days of Drying (after seven days of wet curing)
MIX ID 7 Days 14 Days 21 Days 28Days 42 Days 56 Days 70 Days 84 Days
35MPa-Con -0.0182 -0.0261 -0.0291 -0.0335 -0.0349 -0.0356 -0.0367 -0.0378
50MPa-Con -0.0208 -0.0295 -0.0306 -0.0350 N/A -0.0375 -0.0386 -0.0408
50MPa-Ret -0.0174 -0.0237 -0.0294 -0.0325 -0.0355 N/A -0.0381 -0.0379
50MPa-40S -0.0201 -0.0281 -0.0297 -0.0325 -0.0332 -0.0346 N/A -0.0377
50MPa-SRA -0.0125 -0.0214 N/A -0.0264 N/A -0.0297 -0.0310 -0.0312
50MPa-LWA -0.0093 -0.0127 -0.0152 -0.0164 -0.0184 -0.0221 -0.0237 -0.0256
50MPa-Bld -0.0230 -0.0264 -0.0277 N/A -0.0301 -0.0313 -0.0311 -0.0307
Note: N/A indicates an erroneous reading which is not included in the results. For calculation
reason, 50MPa-Bld after 28 days of drying is estimated as (-0.0289) the average between 21 and
35 days of drying. All readings can be found in Appendix Q.
4.5.2 Autogenous/Thermal Shrinkage
Autogenous and thermal shrinkage readings are shown in Table 4-11. This test was conducted
for all seven mix designs. As this test was designed to capture autogenous shrinkage due to self-
desiccation, the initial deformation reading should have been taken at the time of set (Holt,
57
2001). However, equipment was not available for conducting the ASTM C403 Standard Test
Method for Time of Setting of Concrete Mixture by Penetration Resistance during the time of this
experiment. Alternatively, the time of set was estimated as the initial time of temperature rise
(Neville & Brooks, 2010). Hence, all strain readings were zeroed to the estimated time of set.
The readings recorded prior to the estimated time of set may be attributed to the lack of stiffness
to resist the spring forces of the LVDTs, and the deformations were zeroed at the time of set
estimated from onset of temperature. Estimated set times are presented in Table 4-11. Each test
started at about 60 minutes after mixing and ended at the age of 7 days, and deformation readings
were logged every 5 minutes. Two prisms were tested for each mix design and their individual
temperatures were monitored. The average of the two was taken as the final result. Individual
experimental results are shown in Appendix R.
Table 4-11: Autogenous/thermal shrinkage results
MIX ID 1 Day 2 Days 3 Days 4 Days 5 Days 6 Days 7 Days
35MPa-Con (Set @ 6.4 hr)
Strain (10-6) 86.0 -13.5 -191.2 -332.2 -375.6 -263.6 -249.1 Temperature
(oC) 27.0 23.6 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.2 23.0
50MPa-Con* (Set @ 6.5 hr)
Strain (10-6) 67.6 -31.9 -110.1 -246.4 -273.4 -219.8 -346.9 Temperature
(oC) 28.9 23.1 23.1 23.1 23.0 23.0 22.9
50MPa-Ret (Set @ 7.0 hr)
Strain (10-6) 106.1 -11.6 -78.2 -95.5 -195.9 -250.9 -363.8 Temperature
(oC) 31.5 24.9 24.2 23.7 23.9 23.8 23.5
50MPa-40S (Set @ 6.3 hr)
Strain (10-6) 111.0 5.8 -66.5 -145.6 -169.7 -211.2 -259.4 Temperature
(oC) 28.9 24.5 23.7 23.4 23.3 23.3 23.4
50MPa-SRA (Set @ 7.8 hr)
Strain (10-6) 125.5 44.4 -43.4 -111.0 -106.2 -42.5 -47.3 Temperature
(oC) 31.0 24.7 24.0 24.0 23.7 23.6 23.6
50MPa-LWA (Set @ 6.1 hr)
Strain (10-6) 143.8 147.7 75.3 -94.6 -175.7 -197.9 -224.0 Temperature
(oC) 30.0 24.8 24.1 24.0 24.1 23.6 23.6
50MPa-Bld* (Set @ 11.8hr)
Strain (10-6) 55.9 -9.7 -16.4 -2.9 -21.2 -98.4 -147.6 Temperature
(oC) 26.7 22.2 21.3 21.1 21.0 20.8 20.4
Note: Only one set of temperature profile was able to be extracted for some mixtures (*).
4.5.3 Restrained Shrinkage
Restrained shrinkage results are shown in Table 4-12. The test was performed in accordance with
ASTM C1581 (2009) with modifications to increase nominal maximum aggregate size
allowance, as discussed previously. The change in strain in the steel ring and the temperature
evolution in each ring were monitored until 28 days. Since it took two hours to finish placing
concrete in rings, all strain readings were zeroed to the first reading at two hours after water-
58
cement contact to be consistent. Two rings were tested for each mix design, and the average of
the two was taken as the final result. Unfortunately, some strain gauges failed half-way through
the test. As a result, between one to four sets of strain readings were extracted from each
restrained shrinkage ring, and individual gauge readings are shown in Appendix S.
Table 4-12: Restrained shrinkage results
MIX ID (time of initial
restraining stress) 1 Day 3 Days 7 Days 14 Days 21 Days 28 Days
35MPa-Con (12.2 hours)
Strain (10-6) -1.75 -40.92 -77.33 -103.2 -114.5 123.0 Temperature
(oC) 27.3 21.4 22.3 22.5 21.9 22.3
50MPa-Con* (12.0 hours)
Strain (10-6) -33.69 -85.22 -125.11 -145.46 -152/79 -156.40 Temperature
(oC) 27.3 22.3 22.8 22.2 22.5 22.4
50MPa-Ret (16.7 hours)
Strain (10-6) -6.83 -69.74 -110.16 -134.00 -144.89 -150.15 Temperature
(oC) 33.2 23.5 23.4 24.3 23.0 23.0
50MPa-40S (13.2 hours)
Strain (10-6) -13.18 -59.27 -98.81 -127.54 -136.83 -141.38 Temperature
(oC) 30.2 23.4 22.7 23.2 23.0 24.2
50MPa-SRA* (19.7 hours)
Strain (10-6) -8.06 -45.90 -81.55 -106.87 -118.15 -124.88 Temperature
(oC) 35.3 25.3 23.8 23.2 23.1 23.1
50MPa-LWA* (40.2 hours)
Strain (10-6) 5.75 -7.08 -11.70 -18.21 -22.00 -27.18 Temperature
(oC) 30.7 23.0 22.4 22.7 22.6 23.7
50MPa-Bld* (11.8 hours)
Strain (10-6) -36.41 -83.45 -122.83 -143.25 -147.55 -152.48 Temperature
(oC) 27.9 22.0 22.9 22.5 22.4 22.4
Note: The test for 50MPa-Con was terminated 5 hours and 30 minutes prior to the age of 28
days. In addition, only one temperature reading was able to be extracted from some of the tests
(*).
59
Chapter 5 Analysis and Discussion
Based on the experimental results, this chapter discusses the effects of concrete mixture
modifications on various properties, including fresh properties, durability, mechanical properties,
thermal behaviors, and shrinkage properties.
5.1 Fresh Properties
This section discusses the effects of the different mixture modifications have on slump, air, and
fresh density based on the dosages of chemical admixtures required to achieve the predetermined
requirements of slump and air for each mixture (as shown in Appendix G). It was observed that
the effects of admixtures varied with time, even before their shelf lives were over. In addition,
the demand for chemical admixtures also varied with changing batch sizes; larger batch sizes
required higher dosages to achieve the same properties. Similarly, the HPC mixture containing
SRA, 50MPa-SRA, was batched at different times in different volumes to accommodate for the
various test specimen sizes. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the effectiveness of SRA
varied from batch to batch although the same dosage was used. Unfortunately, there is no fresh
concrete test method available for evaluating the effectiveness of SRA. Other observations made
during mixing are also be discussed in the following sections.
5.1.1 Influence of Mix Modifications on Slump
Based on the dosages of superplasticizer required to reach the slump range of 100 to 160 mm,
shown in Appendix G, observations can be made regarding the effects of the various mix
modification methods on workability. In comparison to the HPC control mix (50MPa-Con) the
mixture containing extra retarder (50MPa-Ret) and the mixture with increased slag replacement
(50MPa-40S) showed less demand for superplasticizer in order to meet the desired slump range,
and if equal dosage of superplasticizer was provided as the HPC control mixture, both 50MPa-
Ret and 50MPa-40S would result in higher slumps than the HPC control mixture. In contrast to
observations made by Lopes et al. (2013), who used a propylene glycol ether SRA, the
shrinkage-reducing admixture used in this research project caused a significant reduction in the
workability of the mixture, 50MPa-SRA. Since SRA was added during the last two minute of
mixing, it was required to add enough superplasticizer, during the first three minutes of mixing,
60
to achieve a flowable mixture, in which segregation was an obvious concern, and the addition of
SRA instantly reduced the workability to within the acceptable range. There was a slight increase
in superplasticizer demand in the mixture containing pre-saturated LWA, 50MPa-LWA; perhaps
since the gradation of LWA was coarser than that of the natural sand or the LWA was not fully
saturated and was absorbing water from the mixture. Finally, the mixture containing increased
aggregate content and blended aggregate (50MPa-Bld) had the highest demand for
superplasticizer.
5.1.2 Influence of Mix Modifications on Air Content
Out of all the admixtures used, loss of effectiveness due to aging was most severe in the air-
entraining admixture. In some cases, the dosage of air-entraining admixture had to be tripled to
achieve similar air contents. The admixture was most effective when received, and its effect
decreased drastically after approximately a year in spite of pre-agitation, although a shelf life of
2 years was claimed. Since many of the concrete mixtures in this research project were prepared
at different times, it is difficult to draw any conclusions on the effects of modification methods
on the ability to entrain air. However, comparing the conventional concrete mixture, 35MPa-
Con, with HPC mixtures, it is obvious that 35MPa-Con required much less air entraining
admixture to achieve a similar air content. This may be attributed to the use of silica fume in the
HPC mixtures, as silica fume can contribute to a worse air-void system (Lachemi, Li, & Aïtcin,
1998).
5.1.3 Influence of Mix Modifications on Relative Yield and w/cm
Based on the mix designs developed and the experimental results from this research, all mixtures
were under-yielding with the exception of 35MPa-Con, which was yielding what it was designed
for. As shown in Table 4-1, the under-yielding led to increases of actual cementitious contents in
the HPC mixtures by 2 to 3 %. Unfortunately, fresh density was not measured for all concrete
casts. Otherwise, the actual cementitious content could be used to correct for actual w/cm.
Due to the water contained in the chemical admixtures, it was expected that the actual w/cm
would be higher than the design values of 0.394 for conventional concrete and 0.333 for HPCs.
Hence, the actual w/cm was calculated (calculations can be found in Appendix G). The w/cm of
35MPa-Con was least affected because the lowest amounts of admixtures were required, and the
61
w/cm after correcting for admixtures ranges from 0.399 to 0.404. For 50MPa-Con, 50MPa-Ret,
50MPa-40S, and 50MPa-LWA, the corrected values of w/cm were between the range of 0.340 to
0.350. On the other hand, the corrected values of w/cm for 50MPa-SRA varied from 0.335 to
0.340 because the mixture had a lower design w/cm to begin with, as SRA was introduced as a
replacement of mixing water. Due to the higher demand of superplasticizer, the corrected values
of w/cm for 50MPa-Bld were between 0.345 and 0.360.
5.2 Durability
Results from the rapid chloride penetration test and bulk electrical conductivity test for the ages
of 28 days and 56 days are plotted in Figure 5-1. Numerical values can be found in Table 4-2 and
Appendix I. According to results from ASTM C1202 (2010) and Table 5-1, all specimens, at 28
and 56 days, had RCPT results in the category of very low, with the exception of 35MPa-Con at
28 days in Low. The MTO specifies a maximum rapid chloride permeability of 1,000 coulombs
(Very Low) or less at 28 to 32 days for HPC, and all HPC mixtures studied achieved RCPT
results well below this limit at the age of 28 days. Since concrete used for bridge decks is under
exposure class of either C-1 or C-XL (CSA Standard A23.1, 2009), their chloride ion
penetrability requirements are also considered. For exposure class C-1, chloride ion penetrability
is required to be less than 1,500 coulombs within 56 days, and 1,000 coulombs for C-XL within
56 days (CSA Standard A23.1, 2009). Figure 5-1 shows that all concrete mixtures, including
35MP-Con, passed the C-XL exposure requirement. From Figure 5-1, it can be observed that
35MPa-Con had the highest chloride ion penetrability at both ages. Within the group of HPCs,
50MPa-LWA had the highest penetrability and 50MPa-SRA had the lowest chloride ion
penetrability at 28 and 56 days.
Table 5-1: Chloride ion penetrability based on charge passed (ASTM Standard C1202,
2010)
Charge Passed (coulombs) Chloride Ion Penetrability
>2,000 High
2,000 – 4,000 Moderate
1,000 2,000 Low
100 – 1,000 Very Low
<100 Negligible
62
Figure 5-1: 28 and 56 day rapid chloride penetration and conductivity results
Conductivity for each specimen was calculated using the electrical current value recorded at one
minute after the start of RCPT, and the conductivity results are plotted against their respective
charge passed result in Figure 5-1. A trend line was plotted in the graph, and high coefficient of
determination values, R2, were found in the data. This may suggest that for specimens having
Low to Very Low chloride ion penetrability, the results from ASTM C1760 Standard Test
Method for Bulk Electrical Conductivity of Hardened Concrete are good representations of
results from ASTM C1202 Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability
to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration.
5.3 Mechanical Properties
5.3.1 Influence of Mix Modifications on Compressive Strength
The development of compressive strength is shown in Figure 5-2, and tabular values can be
found in Table 4-3 and Appendix J. Based on the results, all six HPC mixtures met the MTO
63
requirement of 50 MPa by 28 days. In fact, four out of the five modified HPC mixtures had 28
day compressive strengths higher than that of the control mix, with the exception of 50MPa-
SRA. Literature suggests that SRA reduces compressive strengths because it depresses the
dissolution of alkalis in the pore fluid, causing a slower hydration rate (Lopes et al., 2013).
It was observed that the compressive strengths of 35MPa-Con were almost consistently 30 %
less than that of 50MPa-Con at all ages. While the mixture containing extra retarding admixture
had lower compressive strength at the age of 3 days, it exceeded that of the HPC control mix at
the age of 7 days, and it continued to gain strength at a higher rate than 50MPa-Con. Similarly,
additional slag replacement showed a delayed strength development, and the compressive
strength of 50MPa-40S did not reach that of the control until the age of 28 days. As mentioned
before, the compressive strengths of 50MPa-SRA were consistently lower than that of the
control, which may suggest the admixture was recommended by the manufacturer to be used as a
replacement of mixing water because of the need to compensate for the strength loss. The
compressive strength results for 50MPa-LWA are varied with respect to the HPC control
mixture. Of all the mixtures, 50MPa-Bld provided the most similar compressive strength results
as that of the HPC control mix. Prior to 28 days, 50MPa-Bld showed slightly lower strength than
50MPa-Con, but it exceeded the HPC control mixture after the age of 28 days. The reason for
lower compressive strength prior to the age of 28 days is not clear, as most literature suggests the
increase in aggregate content or decrease in paste content should increase compressive strength
of the concrete (Meddah, Zitouni, & Belâabes, 2010; Tumidajski & Gong, 2006; Wang, Wang,
Su, & Cui, 2011).
64
Figure 5-2: Compressive strength development
5.3.2 Influence of Mix Modifications on Splitting Tensile Strength
Splitting tensile strength results are shown in Figure 5-3, and numerical values can be found in
Table 4-4 and Appendix K. As the allowable difference between the average of two samples and
the individual splitting tensile strength values can be as high as 14 % (ASTM Standard C496,
2004), high levels of precision was not expected from this test. Based on the results, it is difficult
to conclude which mixture would provide the best tensile strength because none of the concrete
mixtures appeared consistently on top. 50MPa-Con, 50MPa-LWA, and 50MPa-40S had the
highest strength at 1, 2, and 3 days, respectively. However, 50MPa-Con provided above-average
results at all three ages. On the other hand, 50MPa-SRA provided the lowest splitting tensile
strength results at 1 and 2 days, and second lowest at 3 days amongst the HPC group.
65
Figure 5-3: Splitting tensile strength development
5.3.3 Influence of Mix Modifications on the Static Modulus of Elasticity
The developments of static modulus of elasticity are shown in Figure 5-4, and tabular values can
be found in Table 4-5 and Appendix L. 50MPa-Bld had the highest and 50MPa-LWA had the
lowest static modulus at all ages, although they both demonstrated similar compressive strengths.
The high static modulus of 50MPa-Bld may be attributed to 1) the higher volume of coarse
aggregate as aggregate is generally stiffer than cement paste; 2) the incompressibility of the 25
mm aggregate as it is from a different source (Carden quarry as supposed to Milton quarry); and
3) the lower porosity in 25 mm aggregate than the 19 mm used in the control mixture (0.53 %
absorption as opposed to 1.42 %). In contrast, the low static modulus of the specimens
containing LWA may be attributed to the high porosity of the material (Gündüz & Uğur, 2005).
Comparable results were provided by 50MPa-Ret, 50MPa-40S, and 50MPa-SRA. Between the
three mixtures, 50MPa-SRA had the lowest static modulus, which may be attributed to its low
compressive strength due to slower rate of hydration. Interestingly, the static modulus of 35MPa-
66
Con was only slightly lower than that of 50MPa-Con and higher than that of 50MPa-SRA at all
ages.
Figure 5-4: Static modulus of elasticity development
The compressive strengths and the static moduli of each mixture at three different ages are
plotted in Figure 5-5. While 50MPa-SRA, 50MPa-Con, 50MPa-40S, and 50MPa-Ret are falling
closely together in the graph, 35MPa-Con, 50MPa-Bld, and 50MPa-LWA are shifted away from
the group. As the aggregate compositions in 35MPa-Con, 50MPa-Bld, and 50MPa-LWA are
distinctively different from the others, the results may suggest that a relationship between
compressive strength and static modulus can be developed only when the aggregate type and
aggregate composition in the concretes are similar.
67
Figure 5-5: Static modulus versus compressive strength at 3, 7, 28 days
5.3.4 Influence of Mix Modifications on the Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity
The developments of dynamic modulus are plotted in Figure 5-6, and numerical values can be
found in Table 4-6 and Appendix M. Based on the results of dynamic modulus, it can be
observed that the dynamic modulus increases with increasing maturity of the concrete. While
50MPa-LWA had the lowest static modulus (as shown in Figure 5-4), this mixture showed the
highest value of dynamic modulus at all ages, followed by 50MPa-40S and 50MPa-Bld. 35MPa-
Con and 50MPa-Ret provided comparable results to that of 50MPa-Con, and 50MPa-SRA had
the lowest dynamic modulus at all ages. Also, 50MPa-LWA, 50MPa-40S, and 50MPa-SRA
showed higher rates of dynamic modulus development relative to 50MPa-Bld, 50MPa-Ret, and
50MPa-Con in the first three days.
68
Figure 5-6: Dynamic modulus of elasticity development
The compressive strengths and dynamic moduli of all mixtures are graphed in Figure 5-7. It can
be observed that dynamic modulus increases with increasing compressive strength. However,
variations in dynamic modulus are observed in specimens with similar strength. For example,
50MPa-LWA at 28 days, 50MPa-40S at 28 days, and 50MPa-Ret at 28 days have compressive
strength of approximately 76 MPa but their dynamic moduli are 53, 51, and 46 GPa,
respectively. It is suspected that, for concretes with the same compressive strength, dynamic
modulus is higher for the concrete with a more mature paste system.
69
Figure 5-7: Dynamic modulus versus compressive strength at 3, 7, 28 days
The static and dynamic moduli of all concrete mixtures at four different ages are plotted in
Figure 5-8. It can be observed that the dynamic modulus is always greater than the static
modulus of the same mixture at the same age, and a similar trend was found by other researchers
(Megat Johari et al., 2011; Popovics, Zemajtis, & Shkolnik, 2008). In addition, variation in
dynamic modulus is observed for samples with similar static modulus. For example, 50MPa-
LWA at 28 days, 50MPa-Con at 3 days, and 50MPa-SRA at 3 days had elastic moduli of
approximately 33 GPa but their dynamic moduli are 53, 39, and 35 GPa, respectively. Since pre-
saturated LWA promotes higher degrees of hydration and SRA suppresses hydration, it can be
assumed that, between these three specimens, the degree of maturity is the highest in 50MPa-
LWA at 28 days and the lowest in 50MPa-SRA at 3 days. The results may suggest that the
variation in dynamic modulus is attributed to the difference in maturity of the paste in each
concrete mixture.
70
Figure 5-8: Dynamic versus static modulus at 3, 7, 14, and 28 days
5.4 Thermal Properties
5.4.1 Influence of Mix Modifications on Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
The CTE of 50MPa-LWA at 28 days and the development of CTE for 35MPa-Con, 50MPa-Con,
and 50MPa-Bld are plotted in Figure 5-9. Numerical results can be found in Table 4-7 and
Appendix N. At most ages, 50MPa-Con had the highest CTE, 35MPa-Con in the middle, and
50MPa-Bld had the lowest. This trend may be attributed to the different paste contents in the
three concrete mixtures. The CTE of cement paste varies from 11 to 20 × 10-6
/oC, which is
considerably higher than that of aggregate (Uygunoğlu & Topçu, 2009). Hence, it is reasonable
that concrete CTE increases with decreasing content of aggregate. The mixture containing LWA
was only tested at the age of 28 days. Although the aggregate volumes are the same between
HPC control mixture and 50MPa-LWA, the result shows a noticeable difference in CTE caused
by the replacement of sand by LWA. Uygunoğlu and Topçu (2009) also found that concretes
71
containing LWA generally have lower CTE than normal concrete because LWA has larger
volume of voids in the body.
Figure 5-9: Coefficient of thermal expansions at different ages
5.4.2 Influence of Mix Modifications on Isothermal Calorimetry
The hydration kinetics and heat revolutions are plotted in Figure 5-10 and Figure 5-11,
respectively. Tabular results can be found in Table 4-8 and Appendix O. Since the concrete
specimens were mixed outside of the calorimeter, the first hydration peak was not captured. In
Figure 5-10, the highest heat evolution peak was produced by 50MPa-Con, followed by 50MPa-
LWA and 50MPa-Ret. 50MPa-40S and 50MPa-Bld were the lowest, followed by 50MPa-SRA.
It is observed that 50MPa-Con had a heat evolution peak that was noticeably higher than that of
35MPa-Con; this may be attributed to the higher content of cementitious material in 50MPa-Con.
In contrast, 50MPa-Bld had a lower peak of heat evolution due to its reduced paste content. As
shown in Figure 5-10, doubling the dosage of set-retarding admixture does not only delay the
72
hydration reaction, but it lowers the peak of heat evolution as well. Using slag at a replacement
level of 40 %, 50MPa-40S, was found to be more effective in lowering the peak heat evolution
than doubling the dosage of set-retarding admixture, 50MPa-Ret, based on the mix designs and
results in this study. Similar to other studies (Lopes et al., 2013; Zhutovsky & Kovler, 2013), a
hydration delaying effect was also found from the use of SRA and LWA.
Figure 5-10: Hydration kinetics from isothermal calorimetry
The heat evolved over seven days is shown in Figure 5-11, and each line represents the average
of three samples. Small jumps appear in the 35MPa-Con, 50MPa-Con, 50MPa-Ret, and 50MPa-
40S curves because one of the three channels was automatically terminated before the test period
was over and caused the average values to shift. In other words, for the lines containing jumps,
each line represents the average of three prior to the jump, and the average of two after. Based on
the results, 50MPa-LWA evolved the most heat by the end of seven days. This may be attributed
to the effect of internal curing provided by the pre-saturated LWA, which allowed for a higher
73
degree of hydration to be reached; as a result, more heat was produced. The HPC control mixture
produced the second highest amount of heat. In comparison with 50MPa-Con, 50MPa-Bld
showed the most reduction in the amount of heat evolved at 30 %, followed by 50MPa-40S at 20
%.
Figure 5-11: Heat evolutions from isothermal calorimetry
5.4.3 Influence of Mix Modifications on Semi-Adiabatic Calorimetry
Semi-adiabatic calorimetry results are shown in Figure 5-12, and numerical values can be found
in Table 4-9 and Appendix P. It is observed that the highest temperature was attained by 50MPa-
LWA. Compared to 50MPa-Con, the magnitude of peak temperatures in 50MPa-Ret and 50MPa-
SRA were similar, but the times of occurrence were delayed. Similarly, a delaying effect was
observed with 50MPa-40S, and the peak temperature was also reduced. The biggest reduction in
heat accumulation reduction was observed in 50MPa-Bld. In addition to delaying the time of the
74
peak temperature, 50MPa-Bld registered a 12.6 % reduction of peak temperature relative to
50MPa-Con.
Figure 5-12: Semi-adiabatic calorimetry
5.5 Shrinkage Properties
5.5.1 Linear Drying Shrinkage
Figure 5-13 displays linear drying shrinkage versus time of drying until 84 days. Tabulated
values can be found in Table 4-10 and Appendix Q. It is observed that all seven mixes fulfilled
the requirement of low-shrinkage concrete as defined by CSA 23.1 (2009), which is less than
0.040 % shrinkage after 28 days of drying. At 28 days of drying, the most shrinkage was
observed in 50MPa-Con followed by 35MPa-Con. Although 50MPa-Con had a lower w/cm than
35MPa-Con, the higher shrinkage in 50MPa-Con may be attributed to the higher content of
mixing water in 50MPa-Con (155 kg/m3) than 35MPa-Con (142 kg/m
3) (Maggenti et al., 2013).
The use of additional set-retarding admixture and the increase of slag replacement resulted in
75
slight reductions in shrinkage at 28 days of drying. There was not too much difference in
shrinkage of all seven mix designs during the first 3 days of drying. However, the rate of drying
decreased after 3 days in the specimens containing LWA and specimens containing SRA. The
best drying shrinkage mitigation was achieved by using pre-saturated LWA. Its shrinkage after
28 days of drying was less than half of the low-shrinkage concrete limit specified by CSA 23.1
(2009). The use of SRA and reduction in paste content showed obvious improvements on linear
drying shrinkage. The shrinkage for 50MPa-SRA and 50MPa-Bld after exposed to 28 days of
drying were 0.0264 and 0.0289(estimated) %, respectively.
Figure 5-13: Linear drying shrinkage
5.5.2 Influence of Mix Modifications on Autogenous Shrinkage
At approximately 12 hours after mixing, significant amounts of heat were released by the
specimens causing thermal expansions. As the thermal dilations varied between the different
mixtures, direct comparisons were difficult. Hence, the effect of thermal dilation in each
76
specimen was mathematically eliminated using the average values of CTE measured in the first
seven days, shown in Table 4-7, and the temperature profile recorded for each specimen. The
average values of CTE for 35MPa-Con, 50MPa-Con, and 50MPa-Bld in the first seven days
were 11.09, 11.49, and 9.94 ×10-6
/oC, respectively. CTE for 50MPa-LWA was not measured in
the first seven days. However, it was found that the CTE of 50MPa-LWA was 78.4 % of 50MPa-
Con at 28 days. Therefore, an assumption was made that the CTE of 50MPa-LWA is also 78.4 %
of the CTE of the HPC control mixture at the first seven days. A calculated value of 9.01 ×10-
6/oC was used for thermal dilation correction for 50MPa-LWA. The CTE of 11.49 ×10-6/oC was
used for 50MPa-Ret, 50MPa-40S, and 50MPa-SRA because they had similar aggregate
compositions as the HPC control mixture. It is observed in Figure 5-14 that the expansion peaks
were reduced after correcting for thermal dilation but they were not eliminated. According to
Kada et al. (2002), the early-age CTE of concrete instantly after initial set can reach as high as 32
×10-6/oC and can decrease sharply in just a few hours. Since the evolution of CTE may become
stable at about 12 hours after mixing (Kada et al., 2002), the values of CTE measured in this
project, beginning at the age of 24 hours, may not be representative of the actual CTE of the
concrete during the time of peak temperature rise. As a result, the effects of thermal dilation
might be underestimated.
Autogenous shrinkage results are displayed on Figure 5-14. Limitations of this experiment,
including the underestimation of early-age CTE, the approximation of set-time, and the
susceptibility of the wooden mould itself to volume change due to RH fluctuations in the test
environment, are acknowledged. However, a clear observation can still be made using the results;
that is 50MPa-LWA showed significant swelling at early age, even in the absence of external
curing water, and the mixture did not shrink at all until almost three days after mixing. Out of all
HPC mixtures, most shrinkage was observed in 50MPa-Con. 50MPa-Ret showed comparable
shrinkage as 50MPa-Con. Slight improvements were provided by 50MPa-40S and 50MPa-LWA,
while 50MPa-SRA and 50MPa-Bld had the least shrinkage values. 35MPa-Con and 50MPa-SRA
showed expansion after about five days, and the reason is not clear. However, it is possible that
the two tests were influenced by volume instability of the mould due to RH fluctuations in the
laboratory.
77
Figure 5-14: Autogenous shrinkage
5.5.3 Influence of Mix Modifications on Restrained Shrinkage
Restrained shrinkage results are displayed in Figure 5-15, and numerical results can be found in
Table 4-12. Student’s t-tests were performed to compare results with the HPC control mixture,
shown in Table 5-2, and with the conventional concrete (CC) mixture, shown in Table 5-3.
Independent two-sample t-tests with unequal sample sizes were performed, and the tests were
carried out based on the null hypothesis that the means of the populations from which the two
samples were taken from are equal, and a two tailed t-test was used. If a difference exists with
higher than 95 % confidence, it is identified as significant, and if the confidence is higher than 99
%, the difference is indentified as highly significant.
78
Table 5-2: Student t-distribution analysis for comparison relative to 50MPa-Con
MIX
ID
Number
of
Strain
Gauges
Mean
of
Steel
Strain
Standard
Deviation
(STD)
STD
Squared
Calculated
T Statistic
Student’s
T-Distribution Comments
90% 95% 99%
35MPa-
Con 8 -123.0 11.85 165.69 4.800 1.782 2.179 3.055
Highly
Significant
50MPa-
Con 6 -156.4 14.18 Reference
50MPa-
Ret 7 -150.2 12.04 170.47 0.860 1.796 2.201 3.106
Not
Significant
50MPa-
40S 4 -141.4 7.69 147.85 1.918 1.860 2.306 3.355
90 %
Significant
50MPa-
SRA 4 -124.9 6.26 140.37 4.122 1.860 2.306 3.355
Highly
Significant
50MPa-
LWA 6 -27.18 3.95 108.34 21.503 1.812 2.228 3.169
Highly
Significant
50MPa-
Bld 6 -152.5 14.35 203.50 0.476 1.812 2.228 3.169
Not
Significant
Table 5-3: Student t-distribution analysis for comparison relative to 35MPa-Con
MIX
ID
Number
of
Strain
Gauges
Mean
of
Steel
Strain
Standard
Deviation
(STD)
STD
Squared
Calculated
T Statistic
Student’s
T-Distribution Comments
90% 95% 99%
35MPa-
Con 8 -123.0 11.85 Reference
50MPa-
Con 6 -156.4 14.18 165.69 4.800 1.782 2.179 3.055
Highly
Significant
50MPa-
Ret 7 -150.2 12.04 142.52 4.389 1.771 2.160 3.012
Highly
Significant
50MPa-
40S 4 -141.4 7.69 116.04 2.777 1.812 2.228 3.169 Significant
50MPa-
SRA 4 -124.9 6.26 110.05 0.288 1.812 2.228 3.169
Not
Significant
50MPa-
LWA 6 -27.18 3.95 88.41 18.875 1.782 2.179 3.055
Highly
Significant
50MPa-
Bld 6 -152.5 14.35 167.71 4.211 1.782 2.179 3.055
Highly
Significant
Over the test period of 28 days, no visible cracking was observed in any of the rings tested.
Based on the results, by the age of 28 days, the HPC control mixture, 50MPa-Con, created the
most shrinkage strain on the steel ring. It is observed that conventional concrete, 35MPa-Con,
had 21 % less restrained shrinkage compared to 50MPa-Con, and the difference is highly
significant. Reduction in restrained shrinkage was observed in all modified HPC mixtures. The
HPC containing pre-saturated LWA, 50MPa-LWA, demonstrated the most improvement at 83 %
79
reduction, followed by 50MPa-SRA at 20 % reduction, and both differences are highly
significant. 50MPa-Ret and 50MPa-Bld showed slight improvements of less than 5 %. However,
the improvements are not statically significant according to the t-test. 50MPa-40S had a 10 %
improvement compared to the HPC control mixture, but only at a 90 % confidence level. On the
other hand, in comparison with 35MPa-Con, only 50MPa-LWA in the HPC group showed less
restrained shrinkage than the CC mixture, and the reduction in restrained shrinkage was 78 %
with a difference being highly significant.
Figure 5-15: Restrained shrinkage
In addition to the magnitude of restrained shrinkage at 28 days, the time of compression stress
(negative strain reading) also has a significant impact on the cracking propensity of the concrete
mixture. When restrained shrinkage stress develops at later ages, more time is available for the
concrete to gain tensile strength. The times of initial restraining stress recorded are listed in
Table 4-12. 50MPa-LWA, again, showed significant improvement on the time of initiation of
80
restrained shrinkage stress in comparison with the HPC control mixture, from 11.8 to 40.2 hours.
The second most improvement was observed in 50MPa-SRA at 20.2 hours, followed by 50MPa-
Ret at 16.7 hours. Similar times were recorded from 35MPa-Con, 50MPa-40S, and 50MPa-Bld
as 50MPa-Con. Furthermore, two positive strain (expansion of steel ring) peaks were observed in
the concrete rings containing pre-saturated LWA. The time of the first peak of expansive strain
corresponds to the time of temperature peak, and the strain reduced as the temperature lowered.
The second peak of expansive strain could be attributed to the swelling of concrete caused by the
release of water from the pre-saturated LWA. Similar expansive behavior in 50MPa-LWA was
recorded in autogenous shrinkage test, as shown in Figure 5-14.
81
Chapter 6 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
The main advantage of using HPC for bridge deck applications is that it has superior
impermeability, which can help protect structures from deterioration caused by chloride ingress
from de-icing and marine salts. Due to its low w/cm, use of silica fume, and high paste content,
HPC is inherently more susceptible to the various types of shrinkage, including autogenous,
plastic, drying, and thermal shrinkage. Therefore, in situations where high degrees of restraint
are present, HPC is more vulnerable to cracking, especially at early ages before sufficient tensile
strength is developed. Early-age transverse cracking on bridge decks does not only compromise
the aesthetics of the structure, it also significantly increases the potential for premature
deterioration.
The intention of this research was to recommend mitigation methods for early-age transverse
cracking in HPC bridge decks. The following section summarizes the experimental results on
mechanical properties, durability, thermal behavior, and shrinkage properties of the seven
concrete mixtures examined. The seven concrete mixtures include a conventional concrete
mixture (35MPa-Con), a typical HPC mixture (50MPa-Con), a HPC mixture containing extra-
retarder (50MPa-Ret), a HPC mixture with increased slag replacement (50MPa-40S), a HPC
mixture containing SRA (50MPa-SRA), a HPC mixture containing pre-saturated LWA (50MPa-
LWA), and a HPC mixture with decreased paste content (50MPa-Bld).
Conclusions are drawn based on the results obtained from this research, and recommendations
are made for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and for future research work.
6.1 Summary
The experimental results from each concrete mixture are compared to those of the HPC control
mixture, 50MPa-Con, and are summarized in Table 6-1. Results of all HPC mixtures are also
compared to the conventional concrete mixture, 35MPa-Con, and are summarized in Table 6-2.
In addition, all mixtures that showed improvements in each property category are bolded and
underlined.
82
Table 6-1: Summary of experimental results relative to the HPC control mixture
PROPERTIES MIX ID CC HPC
35MPa-
Con
RE
FE
RE
NC
E:
50M
Pa
-Co
n
50MPa-
Ret
50MPa-
40S
50MPa-
SRA
50MPa-
LWA
50MPa-
Bld
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
28
Days
Increased
(by 233%) Improved
(by 17 %)
Comparable Improved
(by 29 %)
Increased
(by 46 %) Improved
(by 6 %)
56
Days
Increased
(by 243%) Improved
(by 7 %)
Comparable Improved
(by 16 %)
Increased
(by 33 %) Improved
(by 10 %)
Compressive Strength
at 28 days
Decreased
(by 32 %)
Improved
(by 7 %)
Improved
(by 6 %)
Decreased
(by 10 %)
Comparable Comparable
Splitting
Tensile
Strength
1 Day Decreased
(by 34 %)
Decreased
(by 18 %)
Decreased
(by 21 %)
Decreased
(by 36 %)
Decreased
(by 6 %)
Decreased
(by 27 %)
2 Days Decreased
(by 23 %)
Comparable Decreased
(by 9 %)
Decreased
(by 13%)
Comparable Improved
(by 14 %)
3 Days Decreased
(by 33 %)
Decreased
(by 9 %)
Comparable Decreased
(by 13 %)
Decreased
(by 16 %)
Comparable
Static Modulus at 3
days
Comparable Improved
(by 4 %)
Increased
(by 5 %)
Comparable Improved
(by 24 %)
Increased
(by 8 %)
Dynamic Modulus at
28 days
Comparable Comparable Increased
(by 10 %) Improved
(by 11 %)
Increased
(by 18 %)
Increased
(by 13 %)
Coefficient of Thermal
Expansion at 28 days
Improved
(by 6 %)
N/A N/A N/A Improved
(by 20 %)
Improved
(by 22 %)
Isothermal
Calorimetry
– Peak of
Hydration
Kinetics
Peak Improved
(by 24 %)
Improved
(by 19 %)
Improved
(by 34 %)
Improved
(by 31 %)
Improved
(by 14 %)
Improved
(by 36 %)
Time Delayed
(by 2.9 hr) Delayed
(by 4.8 hr) Delayed
(by 1.1 hr)
Delayed
(by 4.0 hr)
Delayed
(by 2.1 hr)
Delayed
(by 1.3 hr)
Isothermal Calorimetry
– Heat Evolved
Improved
(by 18 %) Improved
(by 13 %)
Improved
(by 21 %)
Improved
(by 9 %) Increased
(by 5 %) Improved
(by 30 %)
Semi-Adiabatic
Calorimetry – Peak
Temperature
Improved
(by 8 %)
Comparable Comparable Comparable Increased
(by 5 %) Improved
(by 13 %)
Drying Shrinkage
(after 28 days drying)
Comparable Improved
(by 7 %) Improved
(by 7 %) Improved
(by 25 %)
Improved
(by 53 %)
Improved
(by 17 %)
Autogenous Shrinkage Improved
(by 28 %) Increased
(by 5 %)
Improved
(by 25 %)
Improved
(by 86 %)
Improved
(by 35 %)
Improved
(by 57 %)
Restrained Shrinkage Improved
(by 21 %)
Comparable Improved
(by 10 %)
Improved
(by 20 %)
Improved
(by 83 %)
Comparable
Note: All values are compared to that of the HPC control mixture, 50MPa-Con, and differences
less than 5 % are shown as comparable.
83
Table 6-2: Summary of experimental results relative to the conventional concrete mixture
PROPERTIES MIX ID HPC
RE
FE
RE
NC
E:
35M
Pa
-Co
n
50MPa-
Con
50MPa-
Ret
50MPa-
40S
50MPa-
SRA
50MPa-
LWA
50MPa-
Bld
Chloride Ion
Penetrability
28
Days
Improved
(by 70 %)
Improved
(by 75 %)
Improved
(by 70 %)
Improved
(by 79 %)
Improved
(by 56 %)
Improved
(by 72 %)
56
Days
Improved
(by 71 %)
Improved
(by 73 %)
Improved
(by 71 %)
Improved
(by 76 %)
Improved
(by 61 %)
Improved
(by 74 %)
Compressive Strength
at 28 Days
Improved
(by 47 %)
Improved
(by 57 %)
Improved
(by 55 %)
Improved
(by 33 %)
Improved
(by 53 %)
Improved
(by 47 %)
Splitting
Tensile
Strength
1 Day Improved
(by 52 %)
Improved
(by 25 %)
Improved
(by 20 %)
Comparable Improved
(by 42 %)
Improved
(by 10 %)
2 Days Improved
(by 30 %)
Improved
(by 31 %)
Improved
(by 52 %)
Improved
(by 13 %)
Improved
(by 30 %)
Improved
(by 47 %)
3 Days Improved
(by 49 %)
Improved
(by 36 %)
Improved
(by 54 %)
Improved
(by 30 %)
Improved
(by 25 %)
Improved
(by 44 %)
Static Modulus at 3
days
Comparable Improved
(by 5 %)
Comparable Comparable Improved
(by 25 %)
Increased
(by 6 %)
Dynamic Modulus at
28 days
Decreased
(by 5 %)
Comparable Increased
(by 6 %)
Decreased
(by 14 %)
Increased
(by 12 %)
Comparable
Coefficient of Thermal
Expansion at 28 days
Increased
(by 6 %)
Increased
(by 6 %)
Increased
(by 6 %)
Increased
(by 6 %) Improved
(by 15 %)
Improved
(by 17 %)
Isothermal
Calorimetry
– Peak of
Hydration
Kinetics
Peak Increased
(by 32 %)
Increased
(by 7 %)
Improved
(by 13 %)
Improved
(by 31 %)
Increased
(by 9 %)
Improved
(by 15 %)
Time Accelerated
(by 2.9 hr) Delayed
(by 1.9 hr) Accelerated
(by 1.8 hr) Delayed
(by 1.1 hr)
Accelerated
(by 0.8 hr) Accelerated
(by 1.6 hr)
Isothermal Calorimetry
– Heat Evolved
Increased
(by 22 %)
Increased
(by 6 %)
Comparable Increased
(by 10 %)
Increased
(by 27 %) Improved
(by 15 %)
Semi-Adiabatic
Calorimetry – Peak
Temperature
Increased
(by 9 %)
Increased
(by 9 %)
Increased
(by 6 %)
Increased
(by 9 %)
Increased
(by 14 %) Improved
(by 5 %)
Drying Shrinkage
(after 28 days drying)
Comparable Comparable Comparable Improved
(by 21 %)
Improved
(by 51 %)
Improved
(by 14 %)
Autogenous Shrinkage
at 7 days
Increased
(by 39 %)
Increased
(by 46 %)
Comparable Improved
(by 86 %)
Improved
(by 81 %)
Improved
(by 41 %)
Restrained Shrinkage
at 28 days
Increased
(by 29 %)
Increased
(by 22 %)
Increased
(by 6 %)
Comparable Improved
(by 78 %) Increased
(by 22 %)
Note: All values are compared to that of the conventional concrete mixture, 35MPa-Con, and
differences less than 5 % are shown as comparable.
84
6.2 Conclusions
Based on the experimental results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The 35 MPa conventional concrete mixture showed less restrained shrinkage than the 50
MPa high performance concrete mixture, and this is due to the lower paste content of the
35 MPa mixture that resulted in lower autogenous shrinkage, lower linear drying
shrinkage, lower and delayed peak of heat evolution, lower overall heat generation, and
lower coefficient of thermal expansion.
2. Compared to the HPC control mixture, providing internal curing using pre-saturated fine
lightweight aggregate resulted in improvements in the reduction of linear drying
shrinkage, static modulus of elasticity, peak of heat evolution, and coefficient of thermal
expansion. As a result, restrained shrinkage was drastically reduced by over 80 %.
3. Compared to the 35 MPa conventional concrete mixture, the high performance concrete
mixture containing shrinkage reducing admixture showed comparable restrained
shrinkage. However, other properties such as rapid chloride penetrability, free linear
drying shrinkage, and thermal behavior were significantly reduced.
4. Including pre-saturated lightweight aggregate in concrete induced an early-age swelling
until the age of almost three days, which, if used in a bridge deck, would lead to pre-
compression of the deck and provide more tensile strain capacity to resist cracking.
5. Increasing the level of slag replacement in concrete resulted in a reduced restrained
shrinkage by 10 %; this may be attributed to the overall improvement in the thermal
behavior of concrete, including reduced heat evolution peak, delayed heat evolution peak,
and reduced heat generation.
6. Increasing the dosage of set-retarding admixture resulted in an insignificant reduction in
restrained shrinkage. Although reduced heat generation as a result of delayed hydration
was observed, other properties, such as linear drying shrinkage and static modulus, were
virtually unchanged.
85
7. Increasing aggregate size and aggregate content in concrete resulted in an insignificant
reduction in restrained shrinkage. Substantial improvements were observed in thermal
properties, including hydration kinetics, heat evolution, and heat accumulation in semi-
adiabatic condition. Reduction observed in linear drying shrinkage may be attributed to
the overall reduction of water content in the concrete mixture.
8. The magnitude of shrinkage strain recorded from the ASTM C1581 restrained shrinkage
test was not significantly affected by the differences in thermal behavior of the concrete
mixtures. As substantial thermal behavior improvements were observed in 50MPa-Ret,
50MPa-40S, and 50MPa-Bld, but restrained shrinkage results of the three mixtures were
not significantly improved.
9. Using SRA, even as a replacement of mixing water, resulted in a 10 % reduction in 28
day concrete compressive strength, and lower compressive strengths were observed at all
ages.
10. Replacing an equivalent volume of sand with pre-saturated LWA in concrete increased
the of ASTM C1202 rapid chloride penetration test result values at ages of 28 and 56
days.
11. Introducing SRA in concrete mixtures as a replacement of mixing water in concrete
mixtures decreased the ASTM C1202 rapid chloride penetration test values at ages of 28
and 56 days.
12. Introducing Eucon SRA-XT into fresh concrete has an immediate effect on reducing
workability. It should be taken into consideration if a slump requirement is specified.
6.3 Recommendations
6.3.1 For the Ontario Ministry of Transportation
The following recommendations are made for the ministry:
1. Using pre-saturated lightweight aggregate in high performance concrete bridge decks can
help reduce the propensity of early-age transverse cracking. However, a minimum pre-
86
saturation period of seven days is recommended. As well, this would not be feasible in
freezing condition placements.
2. Compared to the 35 MPa conventional concrete mixture, the high performance concrete
mixture containing pre-saturated lightweight aggregate showed significantly less linear
drying shrinkage and restrained shrinkage results while providing rapid chloride
penetration values at the level of high performance concrete.
3. Compared to the 35 MPa conventional concrete mixture, the high performance concrete
mixture containing shrinkage reducing admixture showed comparable restrained
shrinkage. However, other properties such as rapid chloride penetrability, free linear
drying shrinkage, and thermal behavior were significantly improved.
4. It is possible to reduce the cement content in high performance concrete by increasing
aggregate size and providing optimized gradation without compromising the workability.
This concrete mix design modification can provide benefits such as low heat of
hydration, increased strength, enhanced RCPT performance, and, most importantly,
sustainability.
6.3.2 For Future Research
The following recommendations are made for further research:
1. The restrained shrinkage test should be repeated for all seven mixtures with test periods
extended until the time of cracking for each specimen.
2. The seven mixtures should be tested in absence of coarse aggregate, using ASTM C1698
Standard Test Method for Autogenous Strain of Cement Paste and Mortar, to compare
the effects of mix design modifications on the mortar system.
3. A standardized and more accurate test method should be developed to allow for the
evaluation of autogenous shrinkage in concrete and inter-laboratory comparisons.
4. The geometry of the ASTM C1582 restrained shrinkage test should be modified to
accommodate for concrete mixtures containing coarse aggregates with nominal
maximum sizes larger than 13 mm.
87
References
ACI Committee 209 (2005). Report on Factors Affecting Shrinkage and Creep of Hardened
Concrete. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
ACI Committee 211.1 (2007). Proportions for Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete.
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
ACI Committee 305 (2007). Hot Weather Concreting. American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, USA.
Aitcin P.-C. (1998). High-Performance Concrete. London: E & FN Spon.
Almusallam, A., Maslehuddin, M., Abdul-Waris, M., & Khan, M. (1998). Effect of Mix
Proportions on Plastic Shrinkage Cracking of Concrete in Hot Environments. Construction
and Building Materials, 12(6-7): 353–358.
Anson-Cartwright, M. (2011). Optimization of Aggregate Gradation Combinations to Improve
Concrete Sustainability. MASc Thesis. University of Toronto, Department of Civil
Engineering, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
ASTM Standard C1202 (2010). Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Cocnrete's
Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration. ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, USA.
ASTM Standard C127 (2007). Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific
Gravity), and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM Standard C128 (2007). Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific
Gravity), and Absorption of Fine Aggregate. ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, USA.
ASTM Standard C136 (2006). Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse
Aggregates. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
88
ASTM Standard C138 (2012). Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air
Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM Standard C143 (2010). Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM Standard C157 (2008). Standard Test Method for Length Change of HArdened
Hydraulic-Cement Mortar and Concrete. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
USA.
ASTM Standard C1581 (2009). Standard Test Method for Determining Age at Cracking and
Induced Tensile Stress Characteristics of Mortar and Concrete under Restrained
Shrinkage. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM Standard C1679 (2009). Standard Practice for Measuring Hydration Kinetics of
Hydraulic Cementitious Mixtures Using Isothermal Calorimetry. ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM Standard C1760 (2012). Standard Test Method for Bulk Electrical Conductivity of
Hardened Concrete. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM Standard C1761 (2012). Standard Specification for Lightweight Aggregate for Internal
Curing of Concrete. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM Standard C192 (2007). Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test
Specimens in the Laboratory. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM Standard C215 (2008). Standard Test Method for Fundamental Transverse, Longitudinal,
and Torsional Resonant Frequencies of Concrete Specimens. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM Standard C231 (2010). Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete
by the Pressure Method. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM Standard C29 (2009). Standard Test Method for Bulk Density ("Unit Weight") and Voids
in Aggregate. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
89
ASTM Standard C39 (2010). Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM Standard C403 (2008). Standard Test Method for Time of Setting of Cocnrete Mixture by
Penetration Resistance. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM Standard C469 (2010). Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and
Poisson's Ratio of Concrete in Compression. ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, USA.
ASTM Standard C494 (2011). Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM Standard C496 (2004). Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of
Cylinderical Concrete Specimens. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM Standard C511 (2009). Standard Specification for Mixing Rooms, Moist Cabinets, Moist
Rooms, and Water Storage Tanks Used in the Testing of Hydraulic Cements and
Concretes. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Banthia, N., & Gupta, R. (2008). Plastic Shrinkage Cracking in Cementitious Repairs and
Overlays. Materials and Structures, 42(5): 567–579.
Bentz, D. P. (2007). Inernal Curing of High-Performance Blended Cement Mortars. ACI
Materials Journal, 104(M46): 408-414.
Bentz, D. P., & Snyder, K. A. (1999). Protected Paste Volume in Concrete Extension to Internal
Curing Using Saturated Lightweight Fine Aggregate. Cement and Concrete Research,
29(11): 1863–1867.
Bentz, D. P, Lura, P., & Roberts, J. W. (2005). Mixture Proportioning for Internal Curing,
Concrete International, 27(2): 35–40.
Bentz, D. P., & Weiss W. J. (2010). Internal Curing : A 2010 State-of-the- Art Review, NISTIR
7765. U.S. Department of Commerce.
90
Brown, M. D., Sellers, G., Folliard, K., & Fowler, D. (2001). Restrained Shrinkage Cracking of
Concrete Bridge Decks: State-of-the-Air Review. Report No. FHWA/TX-0-4098-1
Cohen, M. D., Olek, J., & Dolch, W. L. (1990). Mechanism of Plastic Shrinkage Cracking in
Portlnd Cement and Portland Cement-Silica Fume Paste and Mortar. Cement and Concrete
Composites, 20(1):103-119.
CSA Standard 23.2. (2009). Test Methods and Standard Practices for Concrete. Canadian
Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada.
CSA Standard A23.1. (2009). Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete Construction.
Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada.
Darwin, D., Browning, J., Mcleod, H. A. K., Lindquist, W., & Yuan, J. (2012). Implementing
Lessons Learned From Twenty Years of Bridge-Deck Crack Surveys. ACI Special
Publication, 284: 1–18.
Gündüz, L., & Uğur, İ. (2005). The Effects of Different Fine and Coarse Pumice
Aggregate/Cement Ratios on the Structural Concrete Properties Without Using any
Admixtures. Cement and Concrete Research, 35(9): 1859–1864.
Hadidi, R., & Saadeghvaziri, M. A. (2005). Transverse Cracking of Concrete Bridge Decks :
State-of-the-Art. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 10(5): 503–510.
Hammer, T. A. (1999). Test Methods for Linear Measurement of Autogenous Shrinkage Before
Setting. In E-I Tazawa (Eds.), Autogenous Shrinkage of Concrete (pp. 143-154), E & F
Spon.
Hansen, W. (1987). Drying Shrinkage Mechanisms in Portland Cement Paste. Journal of
American Ceramic Society, 70(5): 323-328.
Holt, E. E. (2001). Early Age Autogenous Shrinkage of Concrete. Espoo 2001. Technical
Research Centre of Finland, VTT Publications 446.
Holt, E. (2005). Contribution of Mixture Design to Chemical and Autogenous Shrinkage of
Concrete at Early Ages. Cement and Concrete Research, 35(3): 464–472.
91
Issa, M. A. (1999). Investigation of Cracking in Concrete Bridge Decks at Early Ages. Journal of
Bridge Engineering, 4(2): 116–124.
Kada, H., Lachemi, M., Petrov, N., Bonneau, O., A, P., & Sumi, R. I. (2002). Determination of
the Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of High Performance Concrete from Initial Setting,
Materials and Structures, 35: 35–41.
Kosmatka, S. H., Kerkhoff, B., Panarese, W. C., MacLeod N. F., & McGrath R. J. (2003).
Design and Control Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures (7th
ed.). Portland Cement
Association.
Lachemi M., Li G., & Aïtcin P. (1998). Long-Term Performance of Silica Fume Concretes.
Concrete International, 61(103): 59–65.
Lindquist, W. D., Darwin, D., Browning, J., & Miller, G. G. (2007). Effect of Cracking on
Chloride Content in Concrete Bridge Decks. ACI Materials Journal, 103(M52): 467–473.
Lopes, A. N. M., Silva, E. F., Molin, D. C. C. D., & Filho, R. D. T. (2013). Shrinkage-Reducing
Admixture : Effects on Durability of High-Strength Concrete. ACI Materials Journal,
110(M32), 365–374.
Maggenti, R., Knapp, C., & Fereira, S. (2013). Controlling Shrinkage Cracking. Magazine of the
ACI, 35(9): 36–41.
Mangold, M. (1994). Thermal Prestress of Concrete by Surface Cooling. In R. Springenschim
(Eds.), Proceedings of the international RILEM Symposium (#25) on Thermal Cracking
in Concrete at Early Ages (pp. 265-272). Munich, Bavaria: E & FN SPON.
McLeod, H. A. K., Darwin, D., & Browning, J. (2009). Development and Construction of Low-
Cracking High-Performance Concrete (LC-HPC) Bridge Decks: Construction Methods,
Specifications, and Resistance to Chloride Ion Penetration. The University of Kansas Center
for Research, Inc,. Lawrence, Kansas.
Meddah, M. S., Zitouni, S., & Belâabes, S. (2010). Effect of Content and Particle Size
Distribution of Coarse Aggregate on the Compressive Strength of Concrete. Construction
and Building Materials, 24: 505-512.
92
Megat Johari, M. A., Brooks, J. J., Kabir, S., & Rivard, P. (2011). Influence of Supplementary
Cementitious Materials on Engineering Properties of High Strength Concrete. Construction
and Building Materials, 25(5): 2639–2648.
Mohammed, T. U., Otsuki, N., Hisada, M., & Shibata, T. (2001). Effect of Crack Width and Bar
Types on Corrosion of Steel in Concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
2001(13): 194–201.
MTO LS-435 R23. (2006). Method of Test of Linear Shrinkage of Concrete. Ontario, Canada:
Ministry of Transportation, Ontario Laboratory Testing Manual.
Neville, A. M., & Brooks, J. J. (2010). Concrete Technology, 2nd Edition. Harlow, Essex:
Pearson Educated Limited.
NCDOT. (2012). Superpave - Asphalt Laboratory Information. North Carolina Department of
Transportation.
Ontario Ministry of Transportation (2012). Investigation of Transverse Cracking in Decks of
High Performance Concrete (HPC) Bridge Structures. Ministry of Transportation, Materials
Engineering and Research Office, Concrete Section.
OPSS 1002. (2011). Material Specfification for Aggregates - Concrete. Ontario Provincial
Standards, Ontario, Canada.
OPSS 904. (2012). Construction Specification for Concrete Structures. Ontario Provincial
Standards, Ontario, Canada.
Panchalan, R. K., & Ramakrishnan, V. (2007). Validity of 0 . 45 Power Chart in Obtaining the
Optimized Aggregate Gradation for Improving the Strength Aspects of High-Performance
Concrete. ACI Special Publications, SP243: 99–108.
Popovics, J. S., Zemajtis, J., & Shkolnik, I. (2008). A Study of Static and Dynamic Modulus of
Elasticity of Concrete.University of Illionois, Urbana, IL.
Punmia, D. B., Jain, A. H., & Jain, A. K. (2005). Soil Mechanics and Foundations. Daryaganj:
Laxmi Publications Ltd.
93
Riad, M. Y., Shoukry, S. N., Sosa, E. M., & William, G. W. (2011). Concrete mix pouring
sequence for uniform setting and curing of bridge decks. Construction and Building
Materials, 25(4): 1653–1662.
Shilstone, J. M. (1990). Concrete Mixture Optimization. Concrete International, 12(6): 33–40.
Tumidajski, P. J., & Gong, B. (2006). Effect of Coarse Aggregate Size on Strength and
Workability of Concrete. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 33(2): 206–213.
Uygunoğlu, T., & Topçu, İ. B. (2009). Thermal Expansion of Self-Consolidating Normal and
Lightweight Aggregate Concrete at Elevated Temperature. Construction and Building
Materials, 23(9): 3063–3069.
Wang, Z., Wang, L., Su, H., & Cui, Z. (2011). Optimization of Coarse Aggregate Content Based
on Efficacy Coefficient Method. Journal of Wuhan University of Technology-Mater. Sci.
Ed., 26(2): 329–334.
WesTrack Forensic Team. (2001). Superpave Mixture Design Guide. Westrack Forensic Team
Consensus Report Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation (pp. 1–18).
Washington, DC.
Zhutovsky, S., & Kovler, K. (2013). Hydration Kinetics of High-Performance Cementitious
Systems Under Different Curing Conditions. Materials and Structure, 46(10): 1599 -1611.
94
Appendix A Aggregate Gradation
95
ASTM C 136 – 06 Sieve Analysis for 25 mm Aggregate (Sept 5th, 2012)
Trial #1 Trial #2 Average Sieve Size
(mm)
Mass
Retained
(kg)
% Retained Cumulative
% Retained
Cumulative
% Passing
Mass
Retained
(kg)
% Retained Cumulative
% Retained
Cumulative
% Passing
Cumulative
% Passing
37.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00
26.5 0.58 5.70 5.70 94.30 0.72 6.30 6.30 93.70 94.00
19 4.26 42.24 47.94 52.06 5.91 51.68 57.98 42.02 47.04
16 2.71 26.87 74.81 25.19 2.60 22.74 80.72 19.28 22.24
12.5 1.79 17.70 92.51 7.49 1.68 14.69 95.41 4.59 6.04
9.5 0.68 6.74 99.25 0.75 0.44 3.85 99.26 0.74 0.75
6.7 0.04 0.35 99.60 0.40 0.03 0.26 99.51 0.49 0.44
4.75 0.01 0.10 99.71 0.29 0.01 0.11 99.62 0.38 0.34
2.362 0.00 0.04 99.75 0.25 0.01 0.05 99.67 0.33 0.29
1.18 0.00 0.01 99.76 0.24 0.00 0.01 99.68 0.32 0.28
Pan 0.02 0.24 100.00 0.00 0.04 0.32 100.00 0.00 0.00
SUM 10.09 100.00 11.44 100.00
ASTM C 136 – 06 Sieve Analysis for 19 mm Aggregate (Aug 31st, 2012)
Trial #1 Trial #2 Trial #3 Average Sieve Size
(mm)
Mass
Retained
(kg)
% Retained Cumulative
% Retained
Cumulative
% Passing
Mass
Retained
(kg)
% Retained Cumulative
% Passing
Cumulative
% Passing
Mass
Retained
(kg)
% Retained Cumulative
% Passing
Cumulative
% Passing
Cumulative
% Passing
26.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00
19 0.37 7.09 7.09 92.91 0.50 9.17 9.17 90.83 0.86 14.41 14.41 85.59 89.78
16 1.18 22.81 29.90 70.10 1.16 21.28 30.46 69.54 1.43 24.09 38.50 61.50 67.05
12.5 1.27 24.66 54.56 45.44 1.38 25.23 55.69 44.31 1.49 25.02 63.52 36.48 42.08
9.5 1.30 25.14 79.71 20.29 1.41 25.78 81.47 18.53 1.27 21.31 84.84 15.16 18.00
6.7 0.81 15.78 95.48 4.52 0.79 14.41 95.88 4.12 0.71 12.02 96.86 3.14 3.93
4.75 0.17 3.32 98.80 1.20 0.17 3.03 98.91 1.09 0.14 2.41 99.27 0.73 1.01
2.362 0.01 0.12 98.92 1.08 0.01 0.11 99.02 0.98 0.00 0.08 99.34 0.66 0.91
1.18 0.00 0.02 98.94 1.06 0.00 0.02 99.04 0.96 0.00 0.01 99.36 0.64 0.89
Pan 0.05 1.06 100.00 0.00 0.05 0.96 100.00 0.00 0.04 0.64 100.00 0.00 0.00
SUM 5.15 100.00 5.45 100.00 5.94 100.00
96
ASTM C 136 – 06 Sieve Analysis for 13 mm Aggregate (Aug 31st, 2012)
Trial #1 Trial #2 Trial #3 Average Sieve Size
(mm)
Mass
Retained (g)
% Retained Cumulative
% Retained
Cumulative
% Passing
Mass
Retained (g)
% Retained Cumulative
% Retained
Cumulative
% Passing
Mass
Retained (g)
% Retained Cumulative
% Retained
Cumulative
% Passing
Cumulative
% Passing
16 10.44 0.50 0.50 99.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 99.83
12.5 71.48 3.45 3.95 96.05 56.72 1.92 1.92 98.08 25.17 1.03 1.03 98.97 97.70
9.5 847.92 40.88 44.83 55.17 1154.8 39.01 40.93 59.07 881.32 36.03 37.06 62.94 59.06
6.7 828.17 39.93 84.76 15.24 1250.0 42.23 83.16 16.84 1084.4 44.34 81.40 18.60 16.89
4.75 291.38 14.05 98.81 1.19 461.52 15.59 98.75 1.25 421.67 17.24 98.64 1.36 1.27
2.362 10.30 0.50 99.30 0.70 22.75 0.77 99.52 0.48 17.66 0.72 99.36 0.64 0.61
1.18 0.54 0.03 99.33 0.67 0.90 0.03 99.55 0.45 0.70 0.03 99.39 0.61 0.58
Pan 13.94 0.67 100.00 0.00 13.27 0.45 100.00 0.00 14.92 0.61 100.00 0.00 0.00
SUM 2074.1 100.00 2960.0 100.00 2445.8 100.00
ASTM C 136 – 06 Sieve Analysis for Natural Sand (Sept 5th, 2012)
Trial #1 Trial #2 Average Sieve Size
(mm)
Mass
Retained (g)
% Retained Cumulative
% Retained
Cumulative
% Passing
Mass
Retained (g)
% Retained Cumulative
% Retained
Cumulative
% Passing
Cumulative
% Passing
9.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00
4.75 8.44 1.24 1.24 98.76 8.05 0.79 0.79 99.21 98.99
2.362 76.84 11.30 12.55 87.45 125.63 12.29 13.08 86.92 87.19
1.18 148.09 21.79 34.33 65.67 233.89 22.89 35.97 64.03 64.85
0.6 141.90 20.88 55.21 44.79 218.71 21.40 57.36 42.64 43.71
0.3 150.90 22.20 77.41 22.59 216.57 21.19 78.56 21.44 22.02
0.15 95.91 14.11 91.51 8.49 130.49 12.77 91.32 8.68 8.58
Pan 57.68 8.49 100.00 0.00 88.68 8.68 100.00 0.00 0.00
SUM 679.76 100.00 1022.0 100.00
Fineness Modulus 2.72 2.77 2.75
97
Appendix B Coarse Aggregate Absorptions and Densities
98
ASTM C127 – 07 Absorptions and Densities of 19mm and 13mm Aggregate
19mm 13mm
Results Trial 1 Trial 1 Trial 2 Average
Mass of oven-dry test sample in air (kg) 3.420 2.105 1.920 Mass of saturated-surfacedry test sample in air (kg) 3.469 2.135 1.940
Apparent mass of saturated test sample in water (kg) 2.185 1.350 1.230
Calculations
Relative Density (Specific Gravity) (OD) 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.68 Relative Density (Specific Gravity) (SSD) 2.70 2.72 2.73 2.725
Apparent Relative Density (Apparent Specific Gravity) 2.77 2.79 2.78 2.785
Density (OD) 2657.93 2674.82 2697.46 2686.14
Density (SSD) 2695.62 2712.95 2725.56 2719.26
Apparent Density 2762.31 2781.11 2775.65 2778.38
Absorption (%) 1.42 1.43 1.04 1.235
ASTM C29 – 09 Bulk Densities of 25mm, 19mm, 13mm, and blended aggregate
25mm 19mm 13mm Blended Agg.
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 1 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
Mass of Measure (Kg) 4.44 4.44 4.44 3.91 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.44 4.44 4.44
Mass of Measure Filled with 19.61 19.69 19.595 14.66 14.345 14.57 14.35 20.02 19.93 19.78
Mass of Measure Filled with 14.37 14.37 14.37 - 10.925 10.925 10.925 14.37 14.37 14.37
Volume of Measure (m3) 0.00994 0.00994 0.00994 0.00703 0.00703 0.00703 0.00703 0.00994 0.00994 0.00994
Bulk Density 1526.06 1534.11 1524.55 1529.6 1486.1 1518.12 1486.82 1567.3 1558.25 1543.16
Average Oven Dry Bulk 1528 1530 1497 1556
Average SSD Bulk Density 1536 1551 1516 1557
99
Appendix C Fine Aggregate Absorptions and Densities
100
ASTM C 128 - 07 for Natural Sand
Results (Sept 7, 2012) Trial 1 Trial 2 Average
Mass of oven-dry test specimen (g) 498.90 522.64
Mass of pycnometer filled with water to calibration
mark (g)
1271.08
1270.54
Mass of pycnometer filled with specimen and water to
calibration mark (g)
1585.60
1600.47
Mass of saturated surface-dry specimen (g) 501.89 526.22
Calculations
Relative Density (Specific Gravity) (OD) 2.66 2.66 2.66
Relative Density (Specific Gravity) (SSD) 2.68 2.68 2.68
Apparent Relative Density (Apparent Specific Gravity) 2.71 2.71 2.70
Density (OD) 2655.99 2655.93 2655.96
Density (SSD) 2671.91 2674.13 2673.01
Apparent Density 2699.06 2705.27 2702.16
Absorption (%) 0.60 0.68 0.64
ASTM C 1761 – 12 Absorption and Relative Density of LWA
Results (April 19, 2013) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average
Mass of oven-dry test specimen (g) 263.600 256.490 316.190 Mass of pycnometer filled with water to 1272.67 1272.67 1272.67
Mass of pycnometer filled with specimen and 1421.42 1416.92 1450.45
Mass of saturated surface-dry specimen (g) 319.530 310.640 382.800
Calculations
Relative Density (Specific Gravity) (OD) 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.54 Relative Density (Specific Gravity) (SSD) 1.87 1.87 1.87 1.87
Apparent Relative Density (Apparent Specific 2.30 2.29 2.28 2.29
Density (OD) 1539.65 1537.65 1538.38 1538.56
Density (SSD) 1866.33 1862.27 1862.47 1863.69
Apparent Density 2289.43 2279.48 2278.73 2282.55
Absorption (%) 21.22 21.11 21.07 21.13
ASTM C 1761 – 12 Desorption of LWA at 94% Relative Humidity
Results (April 19, 2013) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average
Mass of sample at wetted surface-dry condition
(Msd)
6.110 7.220 5.490
Mass of sample at 94% RH (M94) 5.080 6.040 4.550
Mass of sample at oven dry (Mod) 5.060 6.010 4.540
Mass of water released at 94% RH (%) 20.36 19.63 20.70 20.23
101
Appendix D Volatility of Chemical Admixtures
102
ASTM C 494 – 11 Residue by Oven Drying for Chemical Admixtures
Eucon 37 Airextra Eucon 727 SRA-XT WR
Mass of stoppered
bottle with sand (g)
209.61 319.90 316.28 318.58 318.28
Mass of stoppered
bottle with sand (g)
204.76 315.69 311.60 314.53 313.52
Mass of stoppered
bottle with sand and
dried sample residue
306.90 316.29 313.18 318.26 315.52
Residue by oven
drying (%)
44.12 14.25 33.76 92.10 44.44
Volatility (%) 55.88 85.75 66.24 7.9 55.56
103
Appendix E Calculations for Mix Design Containing LWA
104
The equation for is as follows:
$%&' =�� × �� × ����� ×1%&'
Equation 6-1
Where:
MLWA = mass of (oven dry) lightweight aggregate needed per unit volume of concrete, kg/m3,
Cf = cementitious materials content for concrete mixture, kg/m3,
CS = chemical shrinkage of cementitious materials at complete (100%) hydration, kg of
water/kg of cement,
αmax = maximum potential degree of hydration of cementitious materials (0 – 1.0)
S = degree of saturation of pre-wetted aggregate relative to the wetted surface-dry condition
(0 to 1.00), and
WLWA = mass of water released by lightweight aggregate in going from the wetted surface-dry
condition to the equilibrium mass at a relative humidity of 94%, expressed as a fraction of the
oven-dry mass.
The content of cementitious materials is 465 kg/m3. Since it contains 25% slag and 75%
GUb8SF (92% Portland cement and 8% silica fume), the total amount of chemical shrinkage,
Cf×CS, can be calculated using chemical shrinkage coefficient from Table 2-4 as:
46556/78 × 9�0.75 × 90.92 × 0.0756/56 + 0.08 × 0.2256/56A + 0.25 × 0.1856/56�A =49.5256DEFGH/78IJKIHGFG .
While maximum degree of hydration, αmax, can be calculated as:
D/I ÷ 0.36 = 0.33 ÷ 0.36 = 0.91666
for w/cm lower than 0.36, otherwise taken as 1.0. The desorption of LWA at 94% relative
humidity was experimentally determined to be 20.23% and can be found in Appendix C. The
degree of saturation of LWA, S, can be taken as 1.0. When all values are substituted into all
values into Equation 6-1, it will yield 224.39kg of dry LWA is needed per meter cube of
concrete. The volume can be calculated using the specific gravity of LWA found in Appendix C
as:
224.3956 ÷ 154056/78 = 0.145778,
which is equal to the volume of sand to be replaced in the mix design.
105
Appendix F Gradation Optimization Using 0.45 Power Chart
106
Sieve Size
(mm) (Sieve Size)
0.45
% Passing by dry mass
Blending Materials Ideal Target (I) Blend #1 (B1) (I-B1)^2 Blend #2 (B2) (I-B2) (I-B1) Control 25mm 19mm 13mm Sand
37.5 5.11 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
26.5 4.37 94.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 85.54 97.52 143.68 97.54 12.01 11.99 100.00
19 3.76 47.04 89.78 100.00 100.00 73.64 78.12 20.10 78.32 4.68 4.48 93.56
16 3.48 22.24 67.05 99.83 100.00 68.16 67.85 0.10 68.13 0.03 0.32 79.24
12.5 3.12 6.04 42.08 97.70 100.00 61.00 60.72 0.08 61.08 0.09 0.28 63.51
9.5 2.75 0.75 18.00 59.06 100.00 53.91 50.62 10.81 51.35 2.56 3.29 48.34
6.7 2.35 0.44 3.93 16.89 100.00 46.07 41.86 17.71 42.97 3.10 4.21 39.47
4.75 2.02 0.34 1.01 1.27 98.99 39.46 38.23 1.52 39.46 0.00 1.23 37.26
2.362 1.47 0.29 0.91 0.61 87.19 28.82 33.57 22.55 34.66 5.84 4.75 32.83
1.18 1.08 0.28 0.89 0.58 64.85 21.09 25.02 15.46 25.83 4.74 3.93 24.55
0.6 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.71 15.55 16.71 1.33 17.26 1.70 1.15 16.17
0.3 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.02 11.39 8.42 8.82 8.69 2.69 2.97 8.15
0.15 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.58 8.34 3.28 25.56 3.39 4.95 5.06 3.18
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sum 267.72 Sum 42.39 43.65
Optimized Blend B1 % Dry Mass B2 % Dry Mass
25 mm Aggregate 0.4131 0.4094
19 mm Aggregate 0.0000 0.0000
13 mm Aggregate 0.2047 0.1958
Natural Sand 0.3822 0.3948
SUM 1 1
107
Appendix G Fresh Properties, Admixture Dosages, and Corrected
Water/Cement Ratio
108
Calculations for W/CM:
NGOP6K1/� = $EPPJQ$OROK61EFGH$EPPJQ�G7GKFOFOJ�P$EFGHOE�P
�JHHGIFGS1/� = $EPPJQ$OROK61EFGH + �$EPPJQ�ℎG7OIE�US7ORF�HG × (GHIGKFVJ�EFO�G�$EPPJQ�G7GKFOFOJ�P$EFGHOE�P
Mix ID: 35MPa-Con Cementitious Content: 360 kg/m3
Design W/CM: 0.3944
Test Specimens Slump
(mm)
Air
(%)
Superplasticizer
(ml/100kg)
Air
Entrainer Corrected
w/cm Compressive Strength (ASTM C39 -10) 110 6.8 500 50 0.3998
Splitting Tensile Strength (ASTM C496-04) 110 6.6 500 50 0.3998
Static Elastic Modulus (ASTM C 469-10) 110 5.0 1000 110 0.4037
Linear Shrinkage (MTO LS-435 R23, 2006) 110 6.6 500 50 0.3998
Autogenous/Thermal Shrinkage Prism Test (not standardized) 160 5.5 1000 100 0.4036
Restrained Shrinkage (ASTM C1581-09) 110 5.0 1000 110 0.4037
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (not standardized) 160 5.5 1000 100 0.4036
Isothermal Heat of Hydration (ASTM C1679-09) 160 5.5 1000 100 0.4036
Semi-Adiabatic Heat of Hydration (not standardized) 160 5.5 1000 100 0.4036
Rapid Chloride Penetration Test (ASTM C1202-10) 110 6.8 500 50 0.3998
Dynamic Modulus & Shrinkage (ASTM C215-08) (ASTM C157-08) 160 5.5 1000 100 0.4036
NOTE: Air content values are corrected using aggregate correction factors shown in Table 3-11.
109
Mix ID: 50MPa-Con Cementitious Content: 465 kg/m3
Design W/CM: 0.3333
Test Specimens Slump
(mm)
Air
(%)
Superplasticizer
(ml/100kg)
Air
Entrainer Corrected
w/cm Compressive Strength (ASTM C39 -10) 120 5.6 700 85 0.3416
Splitting Tensile Strength (ASTM C496-04) 130 6.4 800 300 0.3441
Static Elastic Modulus (ASTM C 469-10) 115 6.6 1350 260 0.3474
Linear Shrinkage (MTO LS-435 R23, 2006) 130 5.9 700 110 0.3418
Autogenous/Thermal Shrinkage Prism Test (not standardized) 160 6.4 800 300 0.3441
Restrained Shrinkage (ASTM C1581-09) 115 5.6 1350 260 0.3474
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (not standardized) 160 6.4 900 300 0.3448
Isothermal Heat of Hydration (ASTM C1679-09) 130 5.0 800 200 0.3432
Semi-Adiabatic Heat of Hydration (not standardized) 130 5.0 800 200 0.3432
Rapid Chloride Penetration Test (ASTM C1202-10) 120 5.6 700 85 0.3416
Dynamic Modulus & Shrinkage (ASTM C215-08) (ASTM C157-08) 160 6.4 900 300 0.3448
NOTE: Air content values are corrected using aggregate correction factors shown in Table 3-11.
Mix ID: 50MP-Ret Cementitious Content: 465 kg/m3
Design W/CM: 0.3333
Test Specimens Slump
(mm)
Air
(%)
Superplasticizer
(ml/100kg)
Air
Entrainer Corrected
w/cm Compressive Strength (ASTM C39 -10) 130 6.8 750 90 0.3431
Splitting Tensile Strength (ASTM C496-04) 175 6.0 600 100 0.3422
Static Elastic Modulus (ASTM C 469-10) 160 5.4 900 225 0.3453
Linear Shrinkage (MTO LS-435 R23, 2006) 175 6.0 600 100 0.3422
Autogenous/Thermal Shrinkage Prism Test (not standardized) 160 5.4 900 225 0.3453
Restrained Shrinkage (ASTM C1581-09) 165 6.9 730 350 0.3452
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (not standardized) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Isothermal Heat of Hydration (ASTM C1679-09) 160 5.4 900 225 0.3453
Semi-Adiabatic Heat of Hydration (not standardized) 160 5.4 900 225 0.3453
Rapid Chloride Penetration Test (ASTM C1202-10) 130 6.8 750 90 0.3431
Dynamic Modulus & Shrinkage (ASTM C215-08) (ASTM C157-08) 160 5.1 850 250 0.3452
NOTE: Air content values are corrected using aggregate correction factors shown in Table 3-11.
110
Mix ID: 50MPa-40S Cementitious Content: 465 kg/m3
Design W/CM: 0.3333
Test Specimens Slump
(mm)
Air
(%)
Superplasticizer
(ml/100kg)
Air
Entrainer Corrected
w/cm Compressive Strength (ASTM C39 -10) 160 6.0 750 80 0.3419
Splitting Tensile Strength (ASTM C496-04) 120 5.8 650 90 0.3413
Static Elastic Modulus (ASTM C 469-10) 170 6.1 1150 250 0.3460
Linear Shrinkage (MTO LS-435 R23, 2006) 120 5.8 650 90 0.3413
Autogenous/Thermal Shrinkage Prism Test (not standardized) 170 6.1 1150 250 0.3460
Restrained Shrinkage (ASTM C1581-09) 180 6.9 950 320 0.3453
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (not standardized) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Isothermal Heat of Hydration (ASTM C1679-09) 170 6.1 1150 250 0.3460
Semi-Adiabatic Heat of Hydration (not standardized) 170 6.1 1150 250 0.3460
Rapid Chloride Penetration Test (ASTM C1202-10) 160 6.0 750 80 0.3419
Dynamic Modulus & Shrinkage (ASTM C215-08) (ASTM C157-08) 165 5.0 800 250 0.3437
NOTE: Air content values are corrected using aggregate correction factors shown in Table 3-11.
Mix ID: 50MPa-SRA Cementitious Content: 465 kg/m3
Design W/CM: 0.3233
Test Specimens Slump
(mm)
Air
(%)
Superplasticizer
(ml/100kg)
Air
Entrainer Corrected
w/cm Compressive Strength (ASTM C39 -10) 120 7.1 1660 70 0.3387
Splitting Tensile Strength (ASTM C496-04) 135 5.8 1200 95 0.3358
Static Elastic Modulus (ASTM C 469-10) 115 5.0 1300 200 0.3374
Linear Shrinkage (MTO LS-435 R23, 2006) 135 5.8 1200 95 0.3358
Autogenous/Thermal Shrinkage Prism Test (not standardized) 115 5.0 1300 200 0.3374
Restrained Shrinkage (ASTM C1581-09) 110 6.6 3050 385 0.3507
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (not standardized) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Isothermal Heat of Hydration (ASTM C1679-09) 115 5.0 1300 200 0.3374
Semi-Adiabatic Heat of Hydration (not standardized) 115 5.0 1300 200 0.3374
Rapid Chloride Penetration Test (ASTM C1202-10) 120 7.1 1660 70 0.3387
Dynamic Modulus & Shrinkage (ASTM C215-08) (ASTM C157-08) 110 6.6 3050 385 0.3507
NOTE: Air content values are corrected using aggregate correction factors shown in Table 3-11.
111
Mix ID: 50MPa-LWA Cementitious Content: 465 kg/m3
Design W/CM: 0.3333
Test Specimens Slump
(mm)
Air
(%)
Superplasticizer
(ml/100kg)
Air
Entrainer Corrected
w/cm Compressive Strength (ASTM C39 -10) 125 6.7 950 300 0.3451
Splitting Tensile Strength (ASTM C496-04) 120 5.2 1400 370 0.3487
Static Elastic Modulus (ASTM C 469-10) 125 6.7 950 300 0.3451
Linear Shrinkage (MTO LS-435 R23, 2006) 125 6.7 950 300 0.3451
Autogenous/Thermal Shrinkage Prism Test (not standardized) 180 5.7 950 300 0.3451
Restrained Shrinkage (ASTM C1581-09) 120 5.2 1400 370 0.3487
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (not standardized) 120 5.2 1400 370 0.3487
Isothermal Heat of Hydration (ASTM C1679-09) 180 5.7 950 300 0.3451
Semi-Adiabatic Heat of Hydration (not standardized) 180 5.7 950 300 0.3451
Rapid Chloride Penetration Test (ASTM C1202-10) 180 5.7 950 300 0.3451
Dynamic Modulus & Shrinkage (ASTM C215-08) (ASTM C157-08) 120 5.2 1400 370 0.3487
NOTE: Air content values are corrected using aggregate correction factors shown in Table 3-11.
Mix ID: 50MPa-Bld Cementitious Content: 347.4 kg/m3
Design W/CM: 0.3333
Test Specimens Slump
(mm)
Air
(%)
Superplasticizer
(ml/100kg)
Air
Entrainer Corrected
w/cm Compressive Strength (ASTM C39 -10) 110 7.0 2500 310 0.3556
Splitting Tensile Strength (ASTM C496-04) 150 5.3 2500 350 0.3560
Static Elastic Modulus (ASTM C 469-10) 110 7.0 2500 310 0.3556
Linear Shrinkage (MTO LS-435 R23, 2006) 110 7.0 2500 310 0.3556
Autogenous/Thermal Shrinkage Prism Test (not standardized) 180 6.0 1500 350 0.3492
Restrained Shrinkage (ASTM C1581-09) 130 5.0 2800 370 0.3581
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (not standardized) 130 5.0 2800 370 0.3581
Isothermal Heat of Hydration (ASTM C1679-09) 165 6.3 1200 310 0.3469
Semi-Adiabatic Heat of Hydration (not standardized) 165 6.3 1200 310 0.3469
Rapid Chloride Penetration Test (ASTM C1202-10) 150 5.3 2500 350 0.3560
Dynamic Modulus & Shrinkage (ASTM C215-08) (ASTM C157-08) 150 5.3 2500 350 0.3560
NOTE: Air content values are corrected using aggregate correction factors shown in Table 3-11.
112
Appendix H Experimental Values for Relative Yield and Actual Cementitious
Content
113
Mass of Measure = 3.9075 kg Volume of Measure = 7.030 liters
Mass of Fresh Concrete and Measure
(kg)
Mass of
concrete
(kg)
Fresh
Density
(kg/m3)
Design
Mass
(kg/m3)
Relative
Yield
Design
Cementitious
Content
(kg/m3)
Actual
Cementitious
Content
(kg/m3)
Mass 1 Mass 2 Mass 3 STD
35MPa-
CON
20.305 20.185 0.08 16.34 2323.97 2324.1 1.00 360 360.0
50MPa-
CON
20.495 20.640 20.530 0.08 16.65 2368.07 2304.5 0.97 465 477.8
50MPa-Ret 20.570 20.285 0.20 16.52 2349.93 2304.5 0.98 465 474.2
50MPa-40S 20.620 20.170 0.32 16.49 2345.31 2302.1 0.98 465 473.7
50MPa-
SRA
20.600 20.285 20.510 0.16 16.56 2355.26 2316.4 0.98 465 472.8
50MPa-
LWA
19.665 19.505 19.900 0.20 15.78 2245.02 2186.6 0.97 465 477.4
50MPa-Bld 20.580 20.965 20.675 0.20 16.83 2394.38 2358 0.98 347.4 352.8
114
Appendix I Experimental Values for Rapid Chloride Penetration Test
115
28 Day Rapid Chloride Penetration Test Results
Average Charge
Passed
(C)
Average Current
At 1
Minute
(mA)
Average Conductivity
Based on
Current at 1
Min (mS/m)
Average
35MPa-
Con
Top Diameter 50.46 50.45 50.6 50.43 50.49 1044 1082 53.8 53.7 5.5 5.5
Height 101.89 102.07 102.02 102 102.00
Bottom Diameter 50.47 50.48 50.27 50.15 50.34 1120 53.6 5.5
Height 101.78 102.16 101.96 101.83 101.93
50MPa-
Con
Top Diameter 50.72 50.59 50.5 50.51 50.58 319 324.5 15.3 15.3 1.6 1.6
Height 102.86 103.08 102.57 103.09 102.90
Bottom Diameter 50.4 50.95 50.68 50.49 50.63 330 15.3 1.6
Height 102.59 102.52 102.28 102.53 102.48
50MPa-
Ret
Top Diameter 51.23 51.33 50.96 50.95 51.12 253 271 9.5 12.1 1.0 1.3
Height 101.65 102.71 101.61 101.81 101.95
Bottom Diameter 51.36 51.48 51.35 51.11 51.33 289 14.7 1.5
Height 102.35 101.38 101.05 101.89 101.67
50MPa-
40S
Top Diameter 50.99 51.06 51.14 51.03 51.06 354 330 17.1 16.15 1.8 1.7
Height 102.09 102.27 102.06 101.75 102.04
Bottom Diameter 51.51 51.25 50.9 51.19 51.21 306 15.2 1.6
Height 101.92 101.95 101.71 101.75 101.83
50MPa-
SRA
Top Diameter 50.8 51.85 52.06 51.77 51.62 237 232 11.0 10.2 1.2 1.1
Height 102.65 101.63 101.85 101.82 101.99
Bottom Diameter 51.58 51.52 51.71 51.78 51.65 227 9.4 1.0
Height 101.94 101.6 101.33 101.69 101.64
50MPa-
LWA
Top Diameter 51.06 51.32 51.67 51.37 51.36 483 473 27.4 27.55 2.9 2.9
Height 102.49 101.91 102.6 102 102.25
Bottom Diameter 51.76 51,35 51.87 51.54 51.72 463 27.7 2.9
Height 102.49 102.06 101.97 102 102.13
35MPa-
Bld
Top Diameter 48.56 48.37 49.3 48.23 48.62 333 305.5 15.0 14.05 1.5 1.4
Height 102.19 101.58 102.19 102.11 102.02
Bottom Diameter 48.86 49.15 49.92 49.27 49.30 278 13.1 1.3
Height 102.16 101.61 101.65 101.73 101.79
116
56 Day Rapid Chloride Penetration Test Results
Average Charge
Passed
(C)
Average Current
At 1
Minute
(mA)
Average Conductivity
Based on
Current at 1
Min (mS/m)
Average
35MPa-
Con
Top Diameter 51.2 51.34 51.8 51.4 51.44 968 979.5 50.7 50.75 5.3 5.3
Height 102.79 101.99 102.19 101.85 102.21
Bottom Diameter 51.51 51.48 51.48 51.53 51.50 991 50.8 5.4
Height 102.25 101.78 101.75 101.68 101.87
50MPa-
Con
Top Diameter 50.82 51.07 51.46 51.05 51.10 284 286 14.1 14.05 1.5 1.5
Height 102.55 101.69 101.69 101.43 101.84
Bottom Diameter 51.56 51.51 51.43 51.45 51.49 288 14 1.5
Height 101.35 102.01 101.31 101.49 101.54
50MPa-
Ret
Top Diameter 50.68 50.76 50.84 50.35 50.66 263 264.5 12.6 12.95 1.3 1.3
Height 101.66 103.52 101.72 102.84 102.44
Bottom Diameter 50.83 50.82 50.94 50.6 50.80 266 13.3 1.4
Height 102.37 102.39 102.09 102.37 102.31
50MPa-
40S
Top Diameter 50.39 51 50.99 50.76 50.79 277 281.5 13.4 13.8 1.4 1.4
Height 102.35 103.33 102.02 102.8 102.63
Bottom Diameter 50.48 50.23 50.31 50.22 50.31 286 14.2 1.5
Height 102.52 101.97 101.73 102.2 102.11
50MPa-
SRA
Top Diameter 51.07 50.8 51.03 51 50.98 246 240 11.8 11.5 1.2 1.2
Height 101.84 102.59 102.23 101.61 102.07
Bottom Diameter 51.77 51.53 51.26 51.36 51.48 234 11.2 1.2
Height 101.66 101.99 101.79 101.68 101.78
50MPa-
LWA
Top Diameter 51.19 51.12 51.56 51.63 51.38 382 380 20.5 20.6 2.1 2.2
Height 102.73 101.52 101.74 102.04 102.01
Bottom Diameter 51.65 51.17 51.28 51.84 51.49 378 20.7 2.2
Height 101.71 101.75 101.42 101.6 101.62
50MPa-
Bld
Top Diameter 51.63 51.98 52.32 51.8 51.93 266 256 12.6 12.45 1.3 1.3
Height 101.36 102.64 102.48 101.64 102.03
Bottom Diameter 52.18 52.15 51.81 51.36 51.88 246 12.3 1.3
Height 101.71 101.68 101.55 101.49 101.61
117
Appendix J Experimental Values for Compressive Strength
118
ASTM C39 – 10 Cylinder Compressive Strengths (MPa)
35MPa-Con 50MPa-Con 50MPa-Ret 50MPa-40S
Age Sample A Sample B Average Sample A Sample B Average Sample A Sample B Average Sample A Sample B Average
3 Days 32.14 32.68 32.41 47.48 48.78 48.13 44.83 48.40 46.62 41.53 39.44 40.49
7 Days 40.54 41.92 41.23 62.13 62.20 62.17 62.61 64.88 63.75 60.11 60.58 60.35
28 Days 51.95 46.69 49.32 70.16 74.69 72.43 77.22 77.10 77.16 74.82 78.06 76.44
56 Days 54.48 51.24 52.86 71.26 78.04 74.65 80.40 81.84 81.12 78.11 78.66 78.39
50MPa-SRA 50MPa-LWA 50MPa-Bld
Age Sample A Sample B Average 52.86 Sample B Average Sample A Sample B Average
3 Days 39.42 40.93 40.18 74.34 49.98 47.53 44.94 44.11 44.53
7 Days 52.33 52.08 52.21 73.28 54.92 53.89 56.64 58.53 57.59
28 Days 67.76 62.93 65.35 73.28 76.70 75.52 75.17 69.83 72.50
56 Days 68.37 66.60 67.49 73.28 72.10 72.69 75.53 77.61 76.57
119
Appendix K Experimental Values for Splitting Tensile Strength
120
ASTM C496-04 Splitting Tensile Strengths
35MPa-Con 50MPa-Con 50MPa-Ret
Age Sample A Sample B Average STS (Mpa) Sample A Sample B Average STS (Mpa) Sample A Sample B Average STS (Mpa)
1 Day 68.41 63.92 66.17 2.11 113.40 87.55 100.48 3.20 68.00 98.07 83.04 2.64
2 Days 66.02 92.94 79.48 2.53 97.98 107.70 102.84 3.28 124.80 83.45 104.13 3.32
3 Days 100.10 82.56 91.33 2.91 137.50 135.00 136.25 4.34 111.50 137.20 124.35 3.96
50MPa-40S 50MPa-SRA 50MPa-LWA
Age Sample A Sample B Average STS (Mpa) Sample A Sample B Average STS (Mpa) Sample A Sample B Average STS (Mpa)
1 Day 96.46 62.20 79.33 2.53 65.37 63.48 64.43 2.05 61.06 85.13 73.10 2.33
2 Days 92.34 94.69 93.52 2.98 93.57 85.25 89.41 2.85 111.30 123.11 117.21 3.73
3 Days 139.10 142.70 140.90 4.49 119.60 117.00 118.30 3.77 146.40 116.50 131.45 4.19
50MPa-Bld
Age Sample A Sample B Average STS (Mpa)
1 Day 97.28 91.30 94.29 3.00
2 Days 108.30 98.82 103.56 3.30
3 Days 100.80 127.30 114.05 3.63
121
Appendix L Experimental Values for Static Modulus of Elasticity
122
MIX ID : 35MPa-Con Age : 3 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
33691 33691 33448 34194 33756 314
Diameter A 101.60 101.79 102.96 102.26 102.15
Diameter B 102.85 102.17 100.80 100.86 101.67
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
25 3.05 3 5 0.0040 0.000040 25 3.05 3 5 0.0040 0.000040
50 6.10 12 14 0.0130 0.000130 50 6.10 12 14 0.0130 0.000130
75 9.15 21 24 0.0225 0.000225 75 9.15 21 24 0.0225 0.000225
100 12.20 30 32 0.0310 0.000310 100 12.20 30 32 0.0310 0.000310
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
25 3.08 17 -3 0.0070 0.000070 25 3.08 19 -3 0.0080 0.000080
50 6.16 31 0 0.0155 0.000155 50 6.16 33 0 0.0165 0.000165
75 9.24 42 8 0.0250 0.000250 75 9.24 43 8 0.0255 0.000255
100 12.32 52 17 0.0345 0.000345 100 12.32 53 17 0.0350 0.000350
123
MIX ID : 35MPa-Con Age : 7 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
36058 36058 36026 36207 36087 85
Diameter A 101.60 101.79 102.96 102.26 102.15
Diameter B 102.85 102.17 100.80 100.86 101.67
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
20 2.44 4 7 0.0055 0.000055 20 2.44 7 5 0.0060 0.000060
50 6.10 14 18 0.0160 0.000160 50 6.10 17 15 0.0160 0.000160
80 9.76 24 28 0.0260 0.000260 80 9.76 27 25 0.0260 0.000260
110 13.42 33 39 0.0360 0.000360 110 13.42 37 36 0.0365 0.000365
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
20 2.46 12 -2 0.0050 0.000050 20 2.46 13 -2 0.0055 0.000055
50 6.16 29 0 0.0145 0.000145 50 6.16 31 -1 0.0150 0.000150
80 9.85 41 10 0.0255 0.000255 80 9.85 43 8 0.0255 0.000255
110 13.55 52 19 0.0355 0.000355 110 13.55 54 18 0.0360 0.000360
124
MIX ID : 35MPa-Con Age : 14 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
39355 38636 37488 38795 38568 784
Diameter A 101.60 101.79 102.96 102.26 102.15
Diameter B 102.85 102.17 100.80 100.86 101.67
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
30 3.66 17 0 0.0085 0.000085 30 3.66 16 0 0.0080 0.000080
65 7.93 33 6 0.0195 0.000195 65 7.93 32 6 0.0190 0.000190
100 12.20 45 16 0.0305 0.000305 100 12.20 45 16 0.0305 0.000305
135 16.47 56 26 0.0410 0.000410 135 16.47 56 26 0.0410 0.000410
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
30 3.70 15 4 0.0095 0.000095 30 3.70 16 4 0.0100 0.000100
65 8.01 31 11 0.0210 0.000210 65 8.01 29 11 0.0200 0.000200
100 12.32 43 22 0.0325 0.000325 100 12.32 41 23 0.0320 0.000320
135 16.63 54 34 0.0440 0.000440 135 16.63 51 35 0.0430 0.000430
125
MIX ID : 35MPa-Con Age : 28 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
42424 42440 41059 41220 41786 749
Diameter A 101.60 101.79 102.96 102.26 102.15
Diameter B 102.85 102.17 100.80 100.86 101.67
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
40 4.88 23 -1 0.0110 0.000110 40 4.88 23 -2 0.0105 0.000105
80 9.76 38 6 0.0220 0.000220 80 9.76 38 6 0.0220 0.000220
120 14.64 50 17 0.0335 0.000335 120 14.64 50 17 0.0335 0.000335
160 19.52 61 30 0.0455 0.000455 160 19.52 61 29 0.0450 0.000450
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
40 4.93 9 11 0.0100 0.000100 40 4.93 16 6 0.0110 0.000110
80 9.85 22 22 0.0220 0.000220 80 9.85 31 16 0.0235 0.000235
120 14.78 34 34 0.0340 0.000340 120 14.78 44 26 0.0350 0.000350
160 19.71 44 48 0.0460 0.000460 160 19.71 55 39 0.0470 0.000470
126
MIX ID : 50MPa-Con Age : 3 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
32947 34207 32728 33386 33317 653
Diameter A 102.49 102.57 101.09 101.94 102.02
Diameter B 102.21 102.36 101.51 101.34 101.86
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
30 3.67 12 2 0.0070 0.000070 30 3.67 17 2 0.0095 0.000095
70 8.56 29 15 0.0220 0.000220 70 8.56 34 15 0.0245 0.000245
110 13.46 43 31 0.0370 0.000370 110 13.46 48 29 0.0385 0.000385
150 18.35 56 47 0.0515 0.000515 150 18.35 61 44 0.0525 0.000525
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
30 3.68 10 5 0.0075 0.000075 30 3.68 12 5 0.0085 0.000085
70 8.59 24 21 0.0225 0.000225 70 8.59 26 21 0.0235 0.000235
110 13.50 37 38 0.0375 0.000375 110 13.50 40 37 0.0385 0.000385
150 18.41 51 54 0.0525 0.000525 150 18.41 52 53 0.0525 0.000525
127
MIX ID : 50MPa-Con Age : 7 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
37275 38219 36840 36853 37297 647
Diameter A 102.49 102.57 101.09 101.94 102.02
Diameter B 102.21 102.36 101.51 101.34 101.86
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
45 5.50 17 10 0.0135 0.000135 45 5.50 18 7 0.0125 0.000125
95 11.62 36 26 0.0310 0.000310 95 11.62 36 22 0.0290 0.000290
145 17.74 52 41 0.0465 0.000465 145 17.74 52 38 0.0450 0.000450
195 23.85 69 57 0.0630 0.000630 195 23.85 68 53 0.0605 0.000605
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
45 5.52 20 6 0.0130 0.000130 45 5.52 17 6 0.0115 0.000115
95 11.66 38 23 0.0305 0.000305 95 11.66 35 22 0.0285 0.000285
145 17.80 54 40 0.0470 0.000470 145 17.80 51 39 0.0450 0.000450
195 23.93 69 57 0.0630 0.000630 195 23.93 67 56 0.0615 0.000615
128
MIX ID : 50MPa-Con Age : 14 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
38341 38948 41451 42310 40263 1917
Diameter A 102.49 102.57 101.09 101.94 102.02
Diameter B 102.21 102.36 101.51 101.34 101.86
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
50 6.12 17 10 0.0135 0.000135 50 6.12 15 11 0.0130 0.000130
100 12.23 33 27 0.0300 0.000300 100 12.23 30 28 0.0290 0.000290
150 18.35 47 44 0.0455 0.000455 150 18.35 44 46 0.0450 0.000450
200 24.47 61 62 0.0615 0.000615 200 24.47 57 63 0.0600 0.000600
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
50 6.14 17 8 0.0125 0.000125 50 6.14 16 6 0.0110 0.000110
100 12.27 35 21 0.0280 0.000280 100 12.27 33 19 0.0260 0.000260
150 18.41 49 36 0.0425 0.000425 150 18.41 48 33 0.0405 0.000405
200 24.55 64 50 0.0570 0.000570 200 24.55 62 47 0.0545 0.000545
129
MIX ID : 50MPa-Con Age : 28 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
41933 42642 43423 47863 43965 2669
Diameter A 102.49 102.57 101.09 101.94 102.02
Diameter B 102.21 102.36 101.51 101.34 101.86
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
45 5.50 12 8 0.0100 0.000100 45 5.50 12 7 0.0095 0.000095
105 12.84 26 30 0.0280 0.000280 105 12.84 26 29 0.0275 0.000275
165 20.18 38 53 0.0455 0.000455 165 20.18 39 51 0.0450 0.000450
225 27.52 49 76 0.0625 0.000625 225 27.52 49 73 0.0610 0.000610
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
45 5.52 21 -1 0.0100 0.000100 45 5.52 19 2 0.0105 0.000105
105 12.89 40 16 0.0280 0.000280 105 12.89 39 17 0.0280 0.000280
165 20.25 55 34 0.0445 0.000445 165 20.25 55 35 0.0450 0.000450
225 27.61 69 53 0.0610 0.000610 225 27.61 64 47 0.0555 0.000555
130
MIX ID : 50MPa-Ret Age : 3 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
31723 32077 31915 32163 31325 31641 31970 309
Diameter A 101.69 101.76 102.77 101.81 102.01
Diameter B 101.90 101.64 102.94 102.47 102.24
Diameter C 101.58 101.59 102.19 102.98 102.09
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
35 4.28 13 10 0.0115 0.000115 35 4.28 14 9 0.0115 0.000115
70 8.57 27 23 0.0250 0.000250 70 8.57 28 22 0.0250 0.000250
105 12.85 40 37 0.0385 0.000385 105 12.85 41 36 0.0385 0.000385
140 17.13 52 52 0.0520 0.000520 140 17.13 52 51 0.0515 0.000515
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
35 4.26 12 12 0.0120 0.000120 35 4.26 11 13 0.0120 0.000120
70 8.53 28 24 0.0260 0.000260 70 8.53 27 25 0.0260 0.000260
105 12.79 41 38 0.0395 0.000395 105 12.79 39 38 0.0385 0.000385
140 17.05 53 51 0.0520 0.000520 140 17.05 52 52 0.0520 0.000520
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B
Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
35 4.28 11 10 0.0105 0.000105 35 4.28 11 11 0.0110 0.000110
70 8.55 26 23 0.0245 0.000245 70 8.55 27 24 0.0255 0.000255
105 12.83 39 37 0.0380 0.000380 105 12.83 40 38 0.0390 0.000390
140 17.10 51 52 0.0515 0.000515 140 17.10 52 51 0.0515 0.000515
131
MIX ID : 50MPa-Ret Age : 7 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
36294 36390 37696 38036 36354 37016 37104 753
Diameter A 101.69 101.76 102.77 101.81 102.01
Diameter B 101.90 101.64 102.94 102.47 102.24
Diameter C 101.58 101.59 102.19 102.98 102.09
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
45 5.51 28 2 0.0150 0.000150 45 5.51 24 1 0.0125 0.000125
95 11.62 48 17 0.0325 0.000325 95 11.62 44 17 0.0305 0.000305
145 17.74 66 33 0.0495 0.000495 145 17.74 60 34 0.0470 0.000470
195 23.86 82 49 0.0655 0.000655 195 23.86 76 50 0.0630 0.000630
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
45 5.48 27 0 0.0135 0.000135 45 5.48 28 -1 0.0135 0.000135
95 11.57 48 13 0.0305 0.000305 95 11.57 49 12 0.0305 0.000305
145 17.66 64 29 0.0465 0.000465 145 17.66 66 27 0.0465 0.000465
195 23.75 80 44 0.0620 0.000620 195 23.75 81 42 0.0615 0.000615
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B
Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
45 5.50 13 10 0.0115 0.000115 45 5.50 17 11 0.0140 0.000140
95 11.61 27 31 0.0290 0.000290 95 11.61 32 30 0.0310 0.000310
145 17.72 40 51 0.0455 0.000455 145 17.72 46 49 0.0475 0.000475
195 23.82 53 71 0.0620 0.000620 195 23.82 58 69 0.0635 0.000635
132
MIX ID : 50MPa-Ret Age : 14 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
39353 39662 38532 38639 37295 37961 39046 873
Diameter A 101.69 101.76 102.77 101.81 102.01
Diameter B 101.90 101.64 102.94 102.47 102.24
Diameter C 101.58 101.59 102.19 102.98 102.09
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
30 3.67 8 8 0.0080 0.000080 30 3.67 9 5 0.0070 0.000070
90 11.01 29 26 0.0275 0.000275 90 11.01 31 22 0.0265 0.000265
150 18.35 47 45 0.0460 0.000460 150 18.35 49 41 0.0450 0.000450
210 25.70 63 65 0.0640 0.000640 210 25.70 65 60 0.0625 0.000625
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
30 3.65 7 7 0.0070 0.000070 30 3.65 7 8 0.0075 0.000075
90 10.96 28 27 0.0275 0.000275 90 10.96 28 28 0.0280 0.000280
150 18.27 44 48 0.0460 0.000460 150 18.27 43 49 0.0460 0.000460
210 25.58 58 70 0.0640 0.000640 210 25.58 58 71 0.0645 0.000645
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B
Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
30 3.67 9 4 0.0065 0.000065 30 3.67 7 6 0.0065 0.000065
90 11.00 30 24 0.0270 0.000270 90 11.00 30 24 0.0270 0.000270
150 18.33 48 45 0.0465 0.000465 150 18.33 48 44 0.0460 0.000460
210 25.66 64 67 0.0655 0.000655 210 25.66 64 65 0.0645 0.000645
133
MIX ID : 50MPa-Ret Age : 28 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
39467 39553 41769 41683 38660 38586 40618 1430
Diameter A 101.69 101.76 102.77 101.81 102.01
Diameter B 101.90 101.64 102.94 102.47 102.24
Diameter C 101.58 101.59 102.19 102.98 102.09
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
30 3.67 13 4 0.0085 0.000085 30 3.67 13 1 0.0070 0.000070
100 12.24 38 23 0.0305 0.000305 100 12.24 38 21 0.0295 0.000295
170 20.80 58 47 0.0525 0.000525 170 20.80 58 44 0.0510 0.000510
240 29.37 75 72 0.0735 0.000735 240 29.37 75 69 0.0720 0.000720
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
30 3.65 15 -1 0.0070 0.000070 30 3.65 13 0 0.0065 0.000065
100 12.18 44 14 0.0290 0.000290 100 12.18 44 12 0.0280 0.000280
170 20.71 64 33 0.0485 0.000485 170 20.71 65 31 0.0480 0.000480
240 29.23 82 55 0.0685 0.000685 240 29.23 84 52 0.0680 0.000680
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B
Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
30 3.67 6 8 0.0070 0.000070 30 3.67 4 9 0.0065 0.000065
100 12.22 29 33 0.0310 0.000310 100 12.22 27 33 0.0300 0.000300
170 20.77 49 56 0.0525 0.000525 170 20.77 47 57 0.0520 0.000520
240 29.32 70 77 0.0735 0.000735 240 29.32 67 79 0.0730 0.000730
134
MIX ID : 50MPa-40S Age : 3 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
37606 33054 34420 34967 32811 33553 35012 1769
Diameter A 101.56 101.64 102.07 102.82 102.02
Diameter B 101.91 101.65 102.76 102.22 102.14
Diameter C 103.62 101.76 101.84 101.57 102.20
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
20 2.45 14 -3 0.0055 0.000055 20 2.45 2 6 0.0040 0.000040
55 6.73 39 -3 0.0180 0.000180 55 6.73 16 19 0.0175 0.000175
90 11.01 55 6 0.0305 0.000305 90 11.01 29 31 0.0300 0.000300
125 15.29 70 8 0.0390 0.000390 125 15.29 42 44 0.0430 0.000430
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
20 2.44 2 6 0.0040 0.000040 20 2.44 6 6 0.0060 0.000060
55 6.71 14 21 0.0175 0.000175 55 6.71 20 18 0.0190 0.000190
90 10.99 23 35 0.0290 0.000290 90 10.99 31 32 0.0315 0.000315
125 15.26 31 52 0.0415 0.000415 125 15.26 39 46 0.0425 0.000425
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B
Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
20 2.44 16 -2 0.0070 0.000070 20 2.44 13 -1 0.0060 0.000060
55 6.70 42 -1 0.0205 0.000205 55 6.70 37 2 0.0195 0.000195
90 10.97 62 5 0.0335 0.000335 90 10.97 54 11 0.0325 0.000325
125 15.24 79 13 0.0460 0.000460 125 15.24 69 19 0.0440 0.000440
135
MIX ID : 50MPa-40S Age : 7 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
37176 37041 36980 36980 36942 37726 37044 298
Diameter A 101.56 101.64 102.07 102.82 102.02
Diameter B 101.91 101.65 102.76 102.22 102.14
Diameter C 103.62 101.76 101.84 101.57 102.20
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
40 4.89 9 16 0.0125 0.000125 40 4.89 11 9 0.0100 0.000100
90 11.01 22 37 0.0295 0.000295 90 11.01 25 30 0.0275 0.000275
140 17.13 33 58 0.0455 0.000455 140 17.13 37 51 0.0440 0.000440
190 23.24 45 79 0.0620 0.000620 190 23.24 48 71 0.0595 0.000595
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
40 4.88 10 10 0.0100 0.000100 40 4.88 5 21 0.0130 0.000130
90 10.99 27 27 0.0270 0.000270 90 10.99 21 39 0.0300 0.000300
140 17.09 42 45 0.0435 0.000435 140 17.09 35 58 0.0465 0.000465
190 23.19 56 63 0.0595 0.000595 190 23.19 48 77 0.0625 0.000625
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B
Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
40 4.88 20 5 0.0125 0.000125 40 4.88 18 6 0.0120 0.000120
90 10.97 39 19 0.0290 0.000290 90 10.97 37 21 0.0290 0.000290
140 17.07 56 35 0.0455 0.000455 140 17.07 53 37 0.0450 0.000450
190 23.16 74 50 0.0620 0.000620 190 23.16 68 53 0.0605 0.000605
136
MIX ID : 50MPa-40S Age : 14 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
36597 37392 43263 40966 40231 38689 39554 2465
Diameter A 101.56 101.64 102.07 102.82 102.02
Diameter B 101.91 101.65 102.76 102.22 102.14
Diameter C 103.62 101.76 101.84 101.57 102.20
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
50 6.12 27 2 0.0145 0.000145 50 6.12 23 5 0.0140 0.000140
100 12.23 50 14 0.0320 0.000320 100 12.23 44 18 0.0310 0.000310
150 18.35 71 27 0.0490 0.000490 150 18.35 64 31 0.0475 0.000475
200 24.47 89 40 0.0645 0.000645 200 24.47 82 44 0.0630 0.000630
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
50 6.10 19 5 0.0120 0.000120 50 6.10 20 6 0.0130 0.000130
100 12.21 35 19 0.0270 0.000270 100 12.21 27 20 0.0235 0.000235
150 18.31 47 34 0.0405 0.000405 150 18.31 50 34 0.0420 0.000420
200 24.41 59 50 0.0545 0.000545 200 24.41 63 49 0.0560 0.000560
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B
Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
50 6.10 10 20 0.0150 0.000150 50 6.10 11 17 0.0140 0.000140
100 12.19 27 34 0.0305 0.000305 100 12.19 29 32 0.0305 0.000305
150 18.29 41 50 0.0455 0.000455 150 18.29 44 47 0.0455 0.000455
200 24.38 56 65 0.0605 0.000605 200 24.38 59 64 0.0615 0.000615
137
MIX ID : 50MPa-40S Age : 28 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
41465 42160 43468 44244 40917 41294 42834 1325
Diameter A 101.56 101.64 102.07 102.82 102.02
Diameter B 101.91 101.65 102.76 102.22 102.14
Diameter C 103.62 101.76 101.84 101.57 102.20
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
30 3.67 12 0 0.0060 0.000060 30 3.67 11 0 0.0055 0.000055
100 12.23 36 18 0.0270 0.000270 100 12.23 35 19 0.0270 0.000270
170 20.80 53 42 0.0475 0.000475 170 20.80 52 42 0.0470 0.000470
240 29.36 69 67 0.0680 0.000680 240 29.36 68 65 0.0665 0.000665
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
30 3.66 9 1 0.0050 0.000050 30 3.66 9 1 0.0050 0.000050
100 12.21 33 18 0.0255 0.000255 100 12.21 35 16 0.0255 0.000255
170 20.75 52 38 0.0450 0.000450 170 20.75 55 34 0.0445 0.000445
240 29.29 69 59 0.0640 0.000640 240 29.29 73 53 0.0630 0.000630
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B
Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
30 3.66 10 6 0.0080 0.000080 30 3.66 8 5 0.0065 0.000065
100 12.19 33 26 0.0295 0.000295 100 12.19 32 25 0.0285 0.000285
170 20.72 53 48 0.0505 0.000505 170 20.72 52 46 0.0490 0.000490
240 29.26 72 69 0.0705 0.000705 240 29.26 71 66 0.0685 0.000685
138
MIX ID : 50MPa-SRA Age : 3 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
31924 33166 32012 32003 32156 31577 32276 539
Diameter A 103.46 102.04 101.69 101.82 102.25
Diameter B 102.30 103.62 101.62 101.68 102.31
Diameter C 102.59 102.36 101.59 101.53 102.02
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
20 2.44 7 0 0.0035 0.000035 20 2.44 11 0 0.0055 0.000055
55 6.70 33 1 0.0170 0.000170 55 6.70 33 4 0.0185 0.000185
90 10.96 55 6 0.0305 0.000305 90 10.96 49 14 0.0315 0.000315
125 15.22 73 14 0.0435 0.000435 125 15.22 66 22 0.0440 0.000440
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
20 2.43 4 6 0.0050 0.000050 20 2.43 6 2 0.0040 0.000040
55 6.69 16 21 0.0185 0.000185 55 6.69 19 17 0.0180 0.000180
90 10.95 28 35 0.0315 0.000315 90 10.95 31 31 0.0310 0.000310
125 15.21 42 48 0.0450 0.000450 125 15.21 44 44 0.0440 0.000440
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B
Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
20 2.45 13 0 0.0065 0.000065 20 2.45 0 11 0.0055 0.000055
55 6.73 30 9 0.0195 0.000195 55 6.73 11 28 0.0195 0.000195
90 11.01 43 25 0.0340 0.000340 90 11.01 26 41 0.0335 0.000335
125 15.29 53 39 0.0460 0.000460 125 15.29 41 51 0.0460 0.000460
139
MIX ID : 50MPa-SRA Age : 7 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
34293 34784 39454 36426 35964 41701 36239 2888
Diameter A 103.46 102.04 101.69 101.82 102.25
Diameter B 102.30 103.62 101.62 101.68 102.31
Diameter C 102.59 102.36 101.59 101.53 102.02
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
40 4.87 10 15 0.0125 0.000125 40 4.87 11 16 0.0135 0.000135
80 9.74 25 29 0.0270 0.000270 80 9.74 25 31 0.0280 0.000280
120 14.61 41 42 0.0415 0.000415 120 14.61 40 44 0.0420 0.000420
160 19.48 56 54 0.0550 0.000550 160 19.48 55 56 0.0555 0.000555
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
40 4.87 6 19 0.0125 0.000125 40 4.87 4 20 0.0120 0.000120
80 9.73 17 36 0.0265 0.000265 80 9.73 16 36 0.0260 0.000260
120 14.60 28 46 0.0370 0.000370 120 14.60 30 49 0.0395 0.000395
160 19.46 41 59 0.0500 0.000500 160 19.46 42 62 0.0520 0.000520
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B
Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
40 4.89 11 15 0.0130 0.000130 40 4.89 7 15 0.0110 0.000110
80 9.79 25 30 0.0275 0.000275 80 9.79 21 29 0.0250 0.000250
120 14.68 39 42 0.0405 0.000405 120 14.68 35 41 0.0380 0.000380
160 19.57 53 55 0.0540 0.000540 160 19.57 43 47 0.0450 0.000450
140
MIX ID : 50MPa-SRA Age : 14 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
39283 39531 40129 40392 35975 36601 39834 1884
Diameter A 103.46 102.04 101.69 101.82 102.25
Diameter B 102.30 103.62 101.62 101.68 102.31
Diameter C 102.59 102.36 101.59 101.53 102.02
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
25 3.04 15 -2 0.0065 0.000065 25 3.04 18 -3 0.0075 0.000075
75 9.13 44 0 0.0220 0.000220 75 9.13 46 -1 0.0225 0.000225
125 15.22 61 14 0.0375 0.000375 125 15.22 64 13 0.0385 0.000385
175 21.31 75 31 0.0530 0.000530 175 21.31 79 28 0.0535 0.000535
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
25 3.04 6 7 0.0065 0.000065 25 3.04 7 6 0.0065 0.000065
75 9.12 20 25 0.0225 0.000225 75 9.12 27 17 0.0220 0.000220
125 15.21 34 41 0.0375 0.000375 125 15.21 45 30 0.0375 0.000375
175 21.29 51 53 0.0520 0.000520 175 21.29 60 43 0.0515 0.000515
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B
Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
25 3.06 9 1 0.0050 0.000050 25 3.06 10 3 0.0065 0.000065
75 9.18 29 16 0.0225 0.000225 75 9.18 30 18 0.0240 0.000240
125 15.29 46 33 0.0395 0.000395 125 15.29 47 35 0.0410 0.000410
175 21.41 63 49 0.0560 0.000560 175 21.41 62 51 0.0565 0.000565
141
MIX ID : 50MPa-SRA Age : 28 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
40556 40583 39234 38864 37632 38330 39809 1190
Diameter A 103.46 102.04 101.69 101.82 102.25
Diameter B 102.30 103.62 101.62 101.68 102.31
Diameter C 102.59 102.36 101.59 101.53 102.02
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
50 6.09 5 22 0.0135 0.000135 50 6.09 6 21 0.0135 0.000135
100 12.18 23 36 0.0295 0.000295 100 12.18 23 35 0.0290 0.000290
150 18.27 39 50 0.0445 0.000445 150 18.27 39 49 0.0440 0.000440
200 24.36 53 64 0.0585 0.000585 200 24.36 55 62 0.0585 0.000585
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
50 6.08 18 14 0.0160 0.000160 50 6.08 18 11 0.0145 0.000145
100 12.17 33 31 0.0320 0.000320 100 12.17 33 28 0.0305 0.000305
150 18.25 47 48 0.0475 0.000475 150 18.25 47 45 0.0460 0.000460
200 24.33 60 65 0.0625 0.000625 200 24.33 60 63 0.0615 0.000615
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B
Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
50 6.12 25 8 0.0165 0.000165 50 6.12 20 8 0.0140 0.000140
100 12.23 43 24 0.0335 0.000335 100 12.23 38 24 0.0310 0.000310
150 18.35 58 40 0.0490 0.000490 150 18.35 53 40 0.0465 0.000465
200 24.47 74 57 0.0655 0.000655 200 24.47 68 56 0.0620 0.000620
142
MIX ID : 50MPa-LWA Age : 3 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
25499 25890 24788 25022 25300 492
Diameter A 102.23 102.65 101.61 101.95 102.11
Diameter B 101.90 102.72 101.35 101.39 101.84
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
25 3.05 17 3 0.0100 0.000100 25 3.05 18 4 0.0110 0.000110
65 7.94 37 23 0.0300 0.000300 65 7.94 38 24 0.0310 0.000310
105 12.82 56 42 0.0490 0.000490 105 12.82 57 43 0.0500 0.000500
145 17.71 74 61 0.0675 0.000675 145 17.71 74 61 0.0675 0.000675
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
25 3.07 20 0 0.0100 0.000100 25 3.07 18 2 0.0100 0.000100
65 7.98 41 21 0.0310 0.000310 65 7.98 41 22 0.0315 0.000315
105 12.89 59 42 0.0505 0.000505 105 12.89 58 43 0.0505 0.000505
145 17.80 77 62 0.0695 0.000695 145 17.80 75 63 0.0690 0.000690
143
MIX ID : 50MPa-LWA Age : 7 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
31295 31453 29226 29703 30420 1121
Diameter A 102.23 102.65 101.61 101.95 102.11
Diameter B 101.90 102.72 101.35 101.39 101.84
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
60 7.33 36 16 0.0260 0.000260 60 7.33 35 14 0.0245 0.000245
110 13.43 55 38 0.0465 0.000465 110 13.43 54 35 0.0445 0.000445
160 19.54 73 59 0.0660 0.000660 160 19.54 73 56 0.0645 0.000645
210 25.64 90 79 0.0845 0.000845 210 25.64 90 75 0.0825 0.000825
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
60 7.37 20 27 0.0235 0.000235 60 7.37 25 25 0.0250 0.000250
110 13.50 35 55 0.0450 0.000450 110 13.50 42 52 0.0470 0.000470
160 19.64 50 82 0.0660 0.000660 160 19.64 56 79 0.0675 0.000675
210 25.78 65 108 0.0865 0.000865 210 25.78 71 103 0.0870 0.000870
144
MIX ID : 50MPa-LWA Age : 14 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
32284 32458 29639 29780 31040 1539
Diameter A 102.23 102.65 101.61 101.95 102.11
Diameter B 101.90 102.72 101.35 101.39 101.84
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
25 3.05 1 18 0.0095 0.000095 25 3.05 0 16 0.0080 0.000080
75 9.16 19 39 0.0290 0.000290 75 9.16 19 37 0.0280 0.000280
125 15.26 40 57 0.0485 0.000485 125 15.26 40 53 0.0465 0.000465
175 21.37 60 72 0.0660 0.000660 175 21.37 60 69 0.0645 0.000645
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
25 3.07 5 13 0.0090 0.000090 25 3.07 7 10 0.0085 0.000085
75 9.21 27 34 0.0305 0.000305 75 9.21 31 30 0.0305 0.000305
125 15.35 51 52 0.0515 0.000515 125 15.35 54 47 0.0505 0.000505
175 21.48 73 69 0.0710 0.000710 175 21.48 77 64 0.0705 0.000705
145
MIX ID : 50MPa-LWA Age : 28 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
34148 34383 31403 31737 32918 1565
Diameter A 102.23 102.65 101.61 101.95 102.11
Diameter B 101.90 102.72 101.35 101.39 101.84
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
50 6.11 10 19 0.0145 0.000145 50 6.11 9 22 0.0155 0.000155
110 13.43 31 43 0.0370 0.000370 110 13.43 31 45 0.0380 0.000380
170 20.76 50 66 0.0580 0.000580 170 20.76 52 66 0.0590 0.000590
230 28.09 68 90 0.0790 0.000790 230 28.09 71 88 0.0795 0.000795
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
50 6.14 19 17 0.0180 0.000180 50 6.14 19 16 0.0175 0.000175
110 13.50 47 38 0.0425 0.000425 110 13.50 46 37 0.0415 0.000415
170 20.87 74 57 0.0655 0.000655 170 20.87 73 57 0.0650 0.000650
230 28.24 101 76 0.0885 0.000885 230 28.24 99 75 0.0870 0.000870
146
MIX ID : 50MPa-Bld Age : 3 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
35937 35937 35475 36275 35906 329
Diameter A 101.60 101.60 104.60 101.24 102.26
Diameter B 102.60 102.30 101.44 101.58 101.98
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
20 2.44 7 2 0.0045 0.000045 20 2.44 8 1 0.0045 0.000045
60 7.31 22 13 0.0175 0.000175 60 7.31 23 12 0.0175 0.000175
100 12.18 36 27 0.0315 0.000315 100 12.18 37 26 0.0315 0.000315
140 17.05 49 41 0.0450 0.000450 140 17.05 49 41 0.0450 0.000450
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
20 2.45 0 7 0.0035 0.000035 20 2.45 1 10 0.0055 0.000055
60 7.35 11 25 0.0180 0.000180 60 7.35 12 26 0.0190 0.000190
100 12.24 21 42 0.0315 0.000315 100 12.24 23 42 0.0325 0.000325
140 17.14 30 60 0.0450 0.000450 140 17.14 33 59 0.0460 0.000460
147
MIX ID : 50MPa-Bld Age : 7 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
39277 40050 38618 38988 39233 608
Diameter A 101.60 101.60 104.60 101.24 102.26
Diameter B 102.60 102.30 101.44 101.58 101.98
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
30 3.65 13 1 0.0070 0.000070 30 3.65 9 0 0.0045 0.000045
80 9.74 33 12 0.0225 0.000225 80 9.74 31 8 0.0195 0.000195
130 15.83 49 27 0.0380 0.000380 130 15.83 48 22 0.0350 0.000350
180 21.92 64 43 0.0535 0.000535 180 21.92 64 36 0.0500 0.000500
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
30 3.67 6 4 0.0050 0.000050 30 3.67 5 9 0.0070 0.000070
80 9.79 20 22 0.0210 0.000210 80 9.79 19 26 0.0225 0.000225
130 15.92 32 42 0.0370 0.000370 130 15.92 30 47 0.0385 0.000385
180 22.04 44 61 0.0525 0.000525 180 22.04 42 66 0.0540 0.000540
148
MIX ID : 50MPa-Bld Age : 14 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
44423 43953 40271 41631 42569 1959
Diameter A 101.60 101.60 104.60 101.24 102.26
Diameter B 102.60 102.30 101.44 101.58 101.98
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
45 5.48 15 -1 0.0070 0.000070 45 5.48 20 0 0.0100 0.000100
95 11.57 32 8 0.0200 0.000200 95 11.57 41 7 0.0240 0.000240
145 17.65 48 20 0.0340 0.000340 145 17.65 57 19 0.0380 0.000380
195 23.74 64 32 0.0480 0.000480 195 23.74 72 31 0.0515 0.000515
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
45 5.51 12 8 0.0100 0.000100 45 5.51 12 10 0.0110 0.000110
95 11.63 25 25 0.0250 0.000250 95 11.63 26 26 0.0260 0.000260
145 17.75 38 43 0.0405 0.000405 145 17.75 39 43 0.0410 0.000410
195 23.87 49 62 0.0555 0.000555 195 23.87 50 60 0.0550 0.000550
149
MIX ID : 50MPa-Bld Age : 28 Days
A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 Average STD
Modulus
(MPa):
45613 45180 44203 44565 44891 628
Diameter A 101.60 101.60 104.60 101.24 102.26
Diameter B 102.60 102.30 101.44 101.58 101.98
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
A Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3 mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
30 3.65 6 7 0.0065 0.000065 30 3.65 7 5 0.0060 0.000060
95 11.57 19 28 0.0235 0.000235 95 11.57 19 25 0.0220 0.000220
160 19.48 33 49 0.0410 0.000410 160 19.48 35 47 0.0410 0.000410
225 27.40 48 69 0.0585 0.000585 225 27.40 49 67 0.0580 0.000580
First Cycle Second Cycle
SA
MP
LE
B Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain Load
(KN)
Stress
(MPa)
Deformation
(x10-3
mm)
Average
D (mm)
Strain
30 3.67 9 4 0.0065 0.000065 30 3.67 9 6 0.0075 0.000075
95 11.63 28 22 0.0250 0.000250 95 11.63 27 25 0.0260 0.000260
160 19.59 46 40 0.0430 0.000430 160 19.59 43 45 0.0440 0.000440
225 27.55 63 58 0.0605 0.000605 225 27.55 59 63 0.0610 0.000610
150
Appendix M Experimental Values for Dynamic Modulus Test
151
35MPa-Con
Specimen A Specimen B Specimen C
Length
(mm) 284 Length
(mm) 286 Length
(mm) 286
Thickness
(mm) 79 Thickness
(mm) 78 Thickness
(mm) 77
Width
(mm) 75 Width(m
m) 75 Width
(mm) 75
K/L= 0.080 K/L= 0.079 K/L= 0.078
T = 1.49 T = 1.49 T = 1.49 Average
Dynamic
Modulus
(MPa)
Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) STD
1 D
ay 3090 4.094 3010 4.069 3030 4.059
Dynamic
Modulus 34146 34169 35903 34739 1008
2 D
ay
s 3245 4.101 3156 4.075 3145 4.066 Dynamic
Modulus 37722 37620 38747 38029 623
3 D
ay
s 3245 4.102 3225 4.078 3210 4.069 Dynamic
Modulus 37731 39312 40395 39146 1340
4 D
ay
s 3360 4.108 3272 4.083 3285 4.072 Dynamic
Modulus 40512 40515 42335 41121 1052
5 D
ay
s 3323 4.11 3314 4.084 3329 4.074 Dynamic
Modulus 39644 41572 43498 41572 1927
6 D
ay
s 3352 4.111 3350 4.084 3360 4.075 Dynamic
Modulus 40349 42480 44323 42384 1989
7 D
ay
s 3371 4.113 3365 4.086 3385 4.077 Dynamic
Modulus 40827 42883 45007 42906 2090
14
Da
ys
3529 4.117 3458 4.09 3480 4.081 Dynamic
Modulus 44788 45330 47616 45911 1501
28
Day
s 3600 4.119 3512 4.093 3540 4.084
Dynamic
Modulus 46631 46791 49308 47577 1502
152
50MPa-Con
Specimen A Specimen B Specimen C
Length
(mm) 281 Length
(mm) 283 Length
(mm) 281
Thickness
(mm) 75 Thickness
(mm) 76 Thickness
(mm) 76
Width
(mm) 76 Width(m
m) 77 Width
(mm) 76
K/L= 0.077 K/L= 0.078 K/L= 0.078
T = 1.49 T = 1.49 T = 1.49 Average
Dynamic
Modulus
(MPa)
Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) STD
1 D
ay 3055 3.879 2990 3.912 3067 3.878
Dynamic
Modulus 35328 33070 34211 34203 1129
2 D
ay
s 3200 3.882 3090 3.916 3156 3.88 Dynamic
Modulus 38792 35355 36244 36797 1784
3 D
ay
s 3275 3.885 3160 3.918 3287 3.884 Dynamic
Modulus 40663 36994 39355 39004 1860
4 D
ay
s 3323 3.886 3209 3.921 3295 3.885 Dynamic
Modulus 41874 38179 39557 39870 1867
5 D
ay
s 3357 3.888 3246 3.922 3332 3.887 Dynamic
Modulus 42757 39074 40472 40768 1859
6 D
ay
s 3384 3.888 3279 3.923 3361 3.888 Dynamic
Modulus 43448 39883 41190 41507 1804
7 D
ay
s 3405 3.89 3304 3.923 3428 3.888 Dynamic
Modulus 44012 40494 42848 42451 1792
14
Da
ys
3480 3.891 3377 3.925 3517 3.890 Dynamic
Modulus 45984 42324 45125 44478 1914
28
Day
s 3529 3.89 3418 3.925 3539 3.891
Dynamic
Modulus 47275 43358 45703 45446 1971
153
50MPa-Ret
Specimen A Specimen B Specimen C
Length
(mm) 281 Length
(mm) 280 Length
(mm) 282
Thickness
(mm) 78 Thickness
(mm) 77 Thickness
(mm) 77
Width
(mm) 77 Width(m
m) 77 Width
(mm) 77
K/L= 0.080 K/L= 0.079 K/L= 0.079
T = 1.49 T = 1.49 T = 1.49 Average
Dynamic
Modulus
(MPa)
Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) STD
1 D
ay 3167 4.028 3090 4.040 3030 4.060
Dynamic
Modulus 34593 33968 33532 34031 533
2 D
ay
s 3335 4.035 3225 4.047 3191 4.067 Dynamic
Modulus 38427 37065 37254 37582 738
3 D
ay
s 3426 4.039 3314 4.050 3232 4.071 Dynamic
Modulus 40593 39168 38255 39339 1178
4 D
ay
s 3460 4.040 3377 4.051 3324 4.072 Dynamic
Modulus 41413 40681 40474 40856 493
5 D
ay
s 3494 4.041 3382 4.052 3357 4.072 Dynamic
Modulus 42242 40812 41282 41445 729
6 D
ay
s 3524 4.042 3443 4.053 3384 4.073 Dynamic
Modulus 42981 42308 41959 42416 519
7 D
ay
s 3546 4.043 3428 4.054 3408 4.074 Dynamic
Modulus 43530 41951 42566 42682 796
14
Da
ys
3635 4.046 3518 4.056 3500 4.077 Dynamic
Modulus 45776 44204 44929 44970 787
28
Day
s 3650 4.045 3567 4.056 3534 4.078
Dynamic
Modulus 46143 45444 45817 45801 350
154
50MPa-40S
Specimen A Specimen B Specimen C
Length
(mm) 286 Length
(mm) 285 Length
(mm) 284
Thickness
(mm) 77 Thickness
(mm) 77 Thickness
(mm) 77
Width
(mm) 77 Width(m
m) 77 Width
(mm) 77
K/L= 0.078 K/L= 0.078 K/L= 0.078
T = 1.49 T = 1.49 T = 1.49 Average
Dynamic
Modulus
(MPa)
Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) STD
1 D
ay 2981 4.173 2983 4.166 3075 4.147
Dynamic
Modulus 34799 34424 36031 35085 841
2 D
ay
s 3165 4.179 3192 4.173 3201 4.153 Dynamic
Modulus 39284 39483 39101 39289 191
3 D
ay
s 3325 4.183 3293 4.176 3377 4.155 Dynamic
Modulus 43398 42051 43540 42996 822
4 D
ay
s 3363 4.183 3331 4.179 3410 4.157 Dynamic
Modulus 44395 43058 44416 43957 778
5 D
ay
s 3405 4.184 3369 4.178 3448 4.158 Dynamic
Modulus 45522 44036 45423 44993 831
6 D
ay
s 3430 4.184 3400 4.178 3475 4.159 Dynamic
Modulus 46193 44850 46148 45730 763
7 D
ay
s 3454 4.185 3425 4.178 3509 4.160 Dynamic
Modulus 46853 45512 47067 46477 843
14
Da
ys
3553 4.189 3514 4.181 3597 4.163 Dynamic
Modulus 49625 47942 49493 49020 936
28
Day
s 3601 4.189 3574 4.183 3654 4.164
Dynamic
Modulus 50974 49617 51086 50559 818
155
50MPa-SRA
Specimen A Specimen B Specimen C
Length
(mm) 284 Length
(mm) 283 Length
(mm) 281
Thickness
(mm) 78 Thickness
(mm) 77 Thickness
(mm) 79
Width
(mm) 77 Width(m
m) 77 Width
(mm) 78
K/L= 0.079 K/L= 0.079 K/L= 0.081
T = 1.49 T = 1.49 T = 1.49 Average
Dynamic
Modulus
(MPa)
Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) STD
1 D
ay 2773 3.941 2756 3.874 2797 3.932
Dynamic
Modulus 26788 26753 25027 26189 1007
2 D
ay
s 3090 3.950 3060 3.885 3113 3.942 Dynamic
Modulus 33339 33074 31080 32498 1235
3 D
ay
s 3199 3.955 3162 3.890 3212 3.947 Dynamic
Modulus 35778 35362 33130 34757 1424
4 D
ay
s 3238 3.958 3202 3.892 3257 3.949 Dynamic
Modulus 36684 36280 34082 35682 1400
5 D
ay
s 3276 3.956 3248 3.889 3293 3.947 Dynamic
Modulus 37531 37302 34822 36551 1502
6 D
ay
s 3305 3.961 3272 3.894 3317 3.953 Dynamic
Modulus 38246 37904 35385 37178 1562
7 D
ay
s 3330 3.963 3291 3.896 3342 3.954 Dynamic
Modulus 38847 38365 35930 37714 1564
14
Day
s 3049 3.968 3368 3.901 3424 3.958 Dynamic
Modulus 32607
(not considered) 40233 37753 38993 n/a
28
Da
ys 3469 3.971 3410 3.905 3476 3.962
Dynamic
Modulus 42243 41285 38947 40825 1695
156
50MPa-LWA
Specimen A Specimen B Specimen C
Length
(mm) 282 Length
(mm) 283 Length
(mm) 284
Thickness
(mm) 72 Thickness
(mm) 73 Thickness
(mm) 73
Width
(mm) 72 Width(m
m) 73 Width
(mm) 73
K/L= 0.074 K/L= 0.074 K/L= 0.074
T = 1.49 T = 1.49 T = 1.49 Average
Dynamic
Modulus
(MPa)
Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) STD
1 D
ay 3000 3.849 2959 3.886 2875 3.867
Dynamic
Modulus 40763 38293 36356 38471 2209
2 D
ay
s 3156 3.855 3128 3.892 3050 3.873 Dynamic
Modulus 45183 42858 40980 43007 2105
3 D
ay
s 3250 3.862 3252 3.900 3160 3.880 Dynamic
Modulus 48002 46419 44069 46163 1979
4 D
ay
s 3283 3.862 3283 3.900 3180 3.881 Dynamic
Modulus 48982 47308 44640 46976 2190
5 D
ay
s 3323 3.864 3305 3.901 3210 3.882 Dynamic
Modulus 50208 47957 45498 47888 2356
6 D
ay
s 3338 3.865 3315 3.902 3227 3.882 Dynamic
Modulus 50676 48260 45981 48305 2348
7 D
ay
s 3363 3.866 3348 3.903 3245 3.884 Dynamic
Modulus 51451 49238 46519 49069 2470
14
Da
ys
3440 3.868 3425 3.905 3330 3.887 Dynamic
Modulus 53862 51555 49026 51481 2419
28
Day
s 3508 3.871 3475 3.907 3393 3.880
Dynamic
Modulus 56056 53098 50807 53320 2632
157
50MPa-Bld
Specimen A Specimen B Specimen C
Length
(mm) 284 Length
(mm) 285 Length
(mm) 284
Thickness
(mm) 77 Thickness
(mm) 77 Thickness
(mm) 79
Width
(mm) 78 Width(m
m) 77 Width
(mm) 78
K/L= 0.078 K/L= 0.078 K/L= 0.080
T = 1.49 T = 1.49 T = 1.49 Average
Dynamic
Modulus
(MPa)
Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) Resonant
Frequency
(Hz)
Mass (kg) STD
1 D
ay 3200 4.216 3180 4.194 3203 4.216
Dynamic
Modulus 39161 39384 36329 38291 1703
2 D
ay
s 3335 4.220 3310 4.200 3412 4.243 Dynamic
Modulus 42575 42730 41489 42265 676
3 D
ay
s 3402 4.223 3388 4.202 3475 4.245 Dynamic
Modulus 44334 44789 43055 44060 899
4 D
ay
s 3426 4.225 3416 4.203 3510 4.246 Dynamic
Modulus 44983 45544 43937 44821 816
5 D
ay
s 3453 4.224 3445 4.204 3547 4.247 Dynamic
Modulus 45684 46331 44879 45632 727
6 D
ay
s 3470 4.227 3460 4.205 3553 4.248 Dynamic
Modulus 46168 46747 45042 45985 867
7 D
ay
s 3484 4.228 3478 4.207 3576 4.249 Dynamic
Modulus 46552 47257 45638 46482 812
14
Da
ys
3532 4.229 3531 4.207 3615 4.251 Dynamic
Modulus 47855 48708 46660 47741 1029
28
Day
s 3559 4.231 3563 4.209 3641 4.253
Dynamic
Modulus 48613 49618 47356 48529 1133
158
Appendix N Experimental Values for Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
159
35MPa-Con Gauge Length = 150 mm
Specimen A Specimen B Specimen C Average
(10-6
/oC)
STD
Temperature
(oC)
CRD
(mm)
Mass
(kg)
CRD
(mm)
Mass
(kg)
CRD
(mm)
Mass
(kg)
1 D
ay
24.64 5.845 4.048 4.601 4.063 4.331 4.027
52.5 5.928 4.678 4.399 CTE (10
-6/oC) 11.92 11.06 9.76 10.91 1.09
2 D
ays 26.5 5.86 4.058 4.614 4.07 4.323 4.034
56.36 5.945 4.697 4.393
CTE (10-6
/oC) 11.39 11.12 9.38 10.63 1.09
3 D
ays 26.42 5.858 4.06 4.621 4.072 4.326 4.036
54.9 5.945 4.69 4.401
CTE (10-6
/oC) 12.22 9.69 10.53 10.81 1.29
4 D
ays 26.25 5.859 4.061 4.619 4.074 4.324 4.04
53.7 5.934 4.716 4.398 CTE (10
-6/oC) 10.93 14.13 10.78 11.95 1.89
5 D
ays 26.25 5.861 4.063 4.608 4.075 4.322 4.04
55 5.939 4.061 4.684 4.392 CTE (10
-6/oC) 10.85 10.57 9.74 10.39 0.58
6 D
ays 25.99 5.861 4.062 4.608 4.075 4.32 4.04
55.18 5.941 4.694 4.406 CTE (10
-6/oC) 10.96 11.78 11.78 11.51 0.47
7 D
ays 26.33 5.866 4.063 4.613 4.076 4.323 4.04
59.76 5.961 4.709 4.419
CTE (10-6
/oC) 11.37 11.49 11.49 11.45 0.07
14 D
ays 25.66 5.875 4.067 4.62 4.08 4.335 4.044
55.1 5.953 4.703 4.413
CTE (10-6
/oC) 10.60 11.28 10.60 10.82 0.39
28 D
ays 21.42 5.876 4.072 4.644 4.084 4.327 4.048
61.1 5.987 4.751 4.434
CTE (10-6
/oC) 11.19 10.79 10.79 10.92 0.23
160
50MPa-Con Gauge Length = 150 mm
Specimen A Specimen B Specimen C Average
(10-6
/oC)
STD
Temperature
(oC)
CRD
(mm)
Mass
(kg)
CRD
(mm)
Mass
(kg)
CRD
(mm)
Mass
(kg)
1 D
ay
15.86 5.384 3.997 6.104 3.961 6.771 3.953
59.35 5.507 6.227 6.892 CTE (10
-6/oC) 11.31 11.31 11.13 11.25 0.1
2 D
ays 26.42 5.422 4.001 6.142 3.964 6.81 3.956
57.71 5.517 6.24 6.903
CTE (10-6
/oC) 12.14 12.53 11.89 12.19 0.32
3 D
ays 26.67 5.432 4 6.158 3.964 6.828 3.957
58.5 5.522 6.251 6.917 CTE (10
-6/oC) 11.31 11.69 11.18 11.39 0.27
4 D
ays 25.83 5.444 4 6.16 3.964 6.831 3.957
55.65 5.519 6.245 6.905 CTE (10
-6/oC) 10.06 11.40 9.93 10.46 0.81
5 D
ays 26.5 5.433 4.001 6.166 3.966 6.821 3.958
58.26 5.525 6.249 6.912 CTE (10
-6/oC) 11.59 10.45 11.46 11.17 0.62
6 D
ays 26.67 5.434 4.002 6.156 3.966 6.822 3.959
58.19 5.526 6.25 6.914 CTE (10
-6/oC) 11.68 11.93 11.68 11.76 0.14
7 D
ays 26.42 5.43 4.002 6.16 3.966 6.819 3.959
56.6 5.525 6.248 6.912 CTE (10
-6/oC) 12.59 11.66 12.33 12.19 0.48
14 D
ays 24.9 5.421 4.005 6.14 3.969 6.805 3.961
60.94 5.541 6.273 6.928
CTE (10-6
/oC) 13.32 14.76 13.65 13.91 0.75
28 D
ays 26.33 5.446 4.006 6.169 3.97 6.834 3.962
62.36 5.548 6.274 6.94
CTE (10-6
/oC) 11.32 11.66 11.77 11.58 0.23
161
50MPa-Bld Gauge Length = 150 mm
Specimen A Specimen B Specimen C Average
(10-6
/oC)
CTE
Temperature
(oC)
CRD
(mm)
Mass
(kg)
CRD
(mm)
Mass
(kg)
CRD
(mm)
Mass
(kg)
1 D
ay
16.47 3.463 4.098 3.574 4.057 3.684 4.042
58.75 3.555 3.666 3.775 CTE (10
-6/oC) 8.70 8.70 8.61 8.67 0.05
2 D
ays 26.25 3.488 4.1 3.598 4.06 3.707 4.044
58.74 3.569 3.681 3.789
CTE (10-6
/oC) 9.97 10.22 10.10 10.10 0.13
3 D
ays 26.92 3.506 4.101 3.615 4.06 3.723 4.046
59.61 3.586 3.698 3.803 CTE (10
-6/oC) 9.79 10.16 9.79 9.91 0.21
4 D
ays 26.08 3.508 4.101 3.62 4.061 3.724 4.045
57.63 3.573 3.684 3.805 CTE (10
-6/oC) 8.24 8.11 10.27 8.87 1.21
5 D
ays 26.5 3.503 4.101 3.618 4.061 3.728 4.046
60.47 3.577 3.691 3.797 CTE (10
-6/oC) 8.71 8.60 8.12 8.48 0.31
6 D
ays 26.75 3.495 4.102 3.607 4.062 3.714 4.047
59.53 3.577 3.69 3.798 CTE (10
-6/oC) 10.01 10.13 10.25 10.13 0.12
7 D
ays 26.5 3.493 4.102 3.603 4.062 3.712 4.047
57.95 3.576 3.688 3.795 CTE (10
-6/oC) 10.56 10.81 10.56 10.64 0.14
14 D
ays 25.03 3.483 4.105 3.596 4.064 3.704 4.049
60.71 3.597 3.707 3.813
CTE (10-6
/oC) 12.78 12.44 12.22 12.48 0.28
28 D
ays 26.08 3.51 4.106 3.621 4.066 3.728 4.051
62.43 3.593 3.707 3.812
CTE (10-6
/oC) 9.13 9.46 9.24 9.28 0.17
50MPa-LWA Gauge Length = 150 mm
Specimen A Specimen B Specimen C Average
(10-6
/oC)
CTE
Temperature
(oC)
CRD
(mm)
Mass
(kg)
CRD
(mm)
Mass
(kg)
CRD
(mm)
Mass
(kg)
28
Da
ys
Da
ys
22.36 8.199 3.871 7.637 3.907 7.529 3.888
64.78 8.292 7.735 7.627 CTE (10
-6/oC) 8.77 9.24 9.24 9.08 0.27
162
Appendix O Experimental Values for Isothermal Calorimetry
163
35
MP
a-C
on
Sample A Sample B Sample C Average STD Heat Evolution
Peak (mW/g) 4.54 4.32 4.59 4.49 0.14
Time of Heat
Evolution Peak (hr) 17.0 17.0 12.0 15.33 2.9
Total Heat Evolved
(J/g) 207.69 - 207.43 207.6 N/A
50
MP
a-C
on
Sample A Sample B Sample C Average STD
Heat Evolution
Peak (mW/g) 5.75 6.20 5.85 5.93 0.24
Time of Heat
Evolution Peak (hr) 12.47 12.33 12.42 12.41 0.07
Total Heat Evolved
(J/g) 243.70 261.48 - 252.59 N/A
50M
Pa
-Ret
Sample A Sample B Sample C Average STD Heat Evolution
Peak (mW/g) 4.88 4.92 4.63 4.81 0.15
Time of Heat
Evolution Peak (hr) 17.12 17.25 17.13 17.17 0.07
Total Heat Evolved
(J/g) 222.76 - 218.09 220.43 N/A
50
MP
a-4
0S
Sample A Sample B Sample C Average STD Heat Evolution
Peak (mW/g) 4.04 3.76 3.97 3.92 0.15
Time of Heat
Evolution Peak (hr) 13.52 13.48 13.50 13.50 0.02
Total Heat Evolved
(J/g) 203.43 198.23 200.83 N/A
50
MP
a-S
RA
Sample A Sample B Sample C Average STD Heat Evolution
Peak (mW/g) 4.26 4.32 3.70 4.09 0.34
Time of Heat
Evolution Peak (hr) 16.37 16.28 16.58 16.41 0.15
Total Heat Evolved
(J/g) 236.86 242.30 206.95 228.70 19.03
50M
Pa-L
WA
Sample A Sample B Sample C Average STD Heat Evolution
Peak (mW/g) 5.55 4.69 5.00 5.08 0.44
Time of Heat
Evolution Peak (hr) 14.45 14.52 14.47 14.48 0.03
Total Heat Evolved 284.33 249.08 262.64 265.35 17.78
50
MP
a-B
ld
Sample A Sample B Sample C Average STD Heat Evolution
Peak (mW/g) 3.10 4.58 3.79 3.82 0.74
Time of Heat
Evolution Peak (hr) 13.78 13.65 13.60 13.68 0.09
Total Heat Evolved
(J/g) 140.95 204.71 184.52 176.73 32.59
164
Appendix P Experimental Values for Semi-Adiabatic Calorimetry
165
166
Appendix Q Experimental Values for Linear Drying Shrinkage
167
35MPa-Con
Specimen A Specimen B Specimen C Average
Strain
(%)
Age
(days)
Days of
Drying GL(mm) = 251.16 GL(mm) = 251.00 GL(mm) = 250.19 STD
Mass (g) CDR(mm) Mass (g) CDR(mm) Mass (g) CDR(mm)
1 3848.7 4.933 3994.9 5.175 3939.2 4.332
7 0 3974 *4.942 4019 5.182 3963 4.340
Strain 0.00000 -0.00080 -0.00640 0.0000 N/A
7 + 0 3970 4.904 4015 5.182 3959 *4.356 Strain -0.00080 -0.00080 0.00000 -0.0004 N/A
7 + 0 3968 4.935 4013 5.183 3957 4.356 Strain -0.00279 -0.00040 0.00000 -0.0014 N/A
7 + 0 3966 4.935 4011 5.183 3955 4.354 Strain -0.00279 -0.00040 -0.00080 -0.0018 N/A
7+120 0 3964 4.935 4009 *5.184 3954 4.353 Strain -0.00279 0.00000 -0.00120 -0.0020 0.0014
8 1 3947 4.931 3992 5.180 3937 4.338 Strain -0.00438 -0.00159 -0.00719 -0.0058 0.0028
9 2 3942 4.921 3987 5.173 3932 4.328
Strain -0.00836 -0.00438 -0.01119 -0.0098 0.0034
10 3 3939 4.918 3983 5.166 3929 4.328
Strain -0.00956 -0.00717 -0.01119 -0.0104 0.0020
11 4 3935 4.918 3980 5.170 3926 4.325 Strain -0.00956 -0.00558 -0.01239 -0.0110 0.0034
12 5 3932 4.907 3977 5.160 3923 4.319 Strain -0.01394 -0.00956 -0.01479 -0.0144 0.0028
13 6 3931 4.906 3975 5.154 3921 4.314 Strain -0.01433 -0.01195 -0.01679 -0.0156 0.0024
14 7 3929 4.907 3973 5.150 3920 4.300 Strain -0.01394 -0.01355 -0.02238 -0.0182 0.0050
21 14 3923 4.879 3967 5.130 3913 4.288 Strain -0.02508 -0.02151 -0.02718 -0.0261 0.0029
28 21 3918 4.865 3962 5.115 3908 4.262 Strain -0.03066 -0.02749 -0.03757 -0.0291 N/A
35 28 3916 4.864 3960 5.115 3906 4.266 Strain -0.03106 -0.02749 -0.03597 -0.0335 0.0043
37 30 4.858 5.109 4.265 Strain -0.03344 -0.02988 -0.03637 -0.0349 0.0033
49 42 3907 4.857 3951 5.108 3897 4.266 Strain -0.03384 -0.03028 -0.03597 -0.0349 0.0029
63 56 3903 4.847 3947 5.100 3894 4.249 Strain -0.03782 -0.03347 -0.04277 -0.0356 N/A
77 70 3902 4.854 3946 5.101 3893 4.26 Strain -0.03504 -0.03307 -0.03837 -0.0367 N/A
91 84 3899 4.843 3943 5.093 3889 4.245 Strain -0.03942 -0.03625 -0.04437 -0.0378 N/A
Note: Red values were neglected in calculations, and (*) indicates initial CDR.
168
50MPa-Con
Specimen A Specimen B Specimen C Average
Strain
(%)
Age
(days)
Days of
Drying GL(mm) = 249.91 GL(mm) = 249.81 GL(mm) = 249.56 STD
Mass (g) CDR(mm) Mass (g) CDR(mm) Mass (g) CDR(mm)
1 3913 5.772 3931 4.924 3885 6.163
7 0 3934 *5.786 3951 *4.941 3905 *6.178
Strain 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.0000 0
7 + 0 3931 5.781 3948 4.933 3901 6.170 Strain -0.00200 -0.00320 -0.00321 -0.0028 0.0007
7 + 0 3929 5.781 3946 4.933 3900 6.170 Strain -0.00200 -0.00320 -0.00321 -0.0028 0.0007
7 + 0 3928 5.780 4945 4.932 3899 6.169 Strain -0.00240 -0.00360 -0.00361 -0.0032 0.0007
7+120 0 3927 5.780 3944 4.932 3898 6.168 Strain -0.00240 -0.00360 -0.00401 -0.0033 0.0008
8 1 3916 5.778 3932 4.932 3887 6.160 Strain -0.00320 -0.00360 -0.00721 -0.0047 0.0022
9 2 3912 5.780 3928 4.928 3882 6.158
Strain -0.00240 -0.00520 -0.00801 -0.0052 0.0028
10 3 3908 5.756 3924 4.916 3879 6.146
Strain -0.01200 -0.01001 -0.01282 -0.0116 0.0014
11 4 3906 5.754 3922 4.908 3877 6.143 Strain -0.01280 -0.01321 -0.01402 -0.0133 0.0006
12 5 3905 5.745 3921 4.902 3876 6.130 Strain -0.01641 -0.01561 -0.01923 -0.0171 0.0019
13 6 3903 5.739 3919 4.896 3874 6.127 Strain -0.01881 -0.01801 -0.02044 -0.0191 0.0012
14 7 3902 5.739 3918 4.890 3873 6.120 Strain -0.01881 -0.02042 -0.02324 -0.0208 0.0022
21 14 3897 5.712 3913 4.872 3868 6.100 Strain -0.02961 -0.02762 -0.03126 -0.0295 0.0018
28 21 3894 5.712 3910 4.867 3865 6.097 Strain -0.02961 -0.02962 -0.03246 -0.0306 0.0016
35 28 3892 5.699 3908 4.856 3863 6.088 Strain -0.03481 -0.03403 -0.03606 -0.0350 0.0010
49 42 3886 5.719 3902 4.876 3857 6.096 Strain -0.02681 -0.02602 -0.03286 #N/A N/A
63 56 3884 5.691 3900 4.854 3855 6.079 Strain -0.03801 -0.03483 -0.03967 -0.0375 0.0025
77 70 3882 5.691 3899 4.862 3853 6.080 Strain -0.03801 -0.03162 -0.03927 -0.0386 N/A
91 84 3880 5.688 3896 4.838 3850 6.073 Strain -0.03921 -0.04123 -0.04207 -0.0408 0.0015
Note: Red values were neglected in calculations, and (*) indicates initial CDR.
169
50MPa-Ret
Specimen A Specimen B Specimen C Average
Strain
(%)
Age
(days)
Days of
Drying GL(mm) = 250.42 GL(mm) = 250.49 GL(mm) = 250.44 STD
Mass (g) CDR(mm) Mass (g) CDR(mm) Mass (g) CDR(mm)
1 3913 8.327 3933 9.716 3917 9.880
7 0 3933 *8.325 3953 *9.718 3936 *9.876
Strain 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.0000 0
7 + 0 3928 8.322 3948 9.717 3931 9.876 Strain -0.00120 -0.00040 0.00000 -0.0005 0.0006
7 + 0 3926 8.322 3946 9.715 3929 9.872 Strain -0.00120 -0.00120 -0.00160 -0.0013 0.0002
7 + 0 3924 8.322 3944 9.716 3928 9.876 Strain -0.00120 -0.00080 0.00000 -0.0007 0.0006
7+120 0 3923 8.323 3943 9.714 3926 3923 Strain -0.00080 -0.00160 0.00000 -0.0008 0.0008
8 1 3906 8.315 3925 9.710 3909 3906 Strain -0.00399 -0.00319 -0.00200 -0.0031 0.0010
9 2 3901 8.314 3920 9.702 3904 3901
Strain -0.00439 -0.00639 -0.00399 -0.0049 0.0013
10 3 3898 8.302 3917 9.687 3901 3898
Strain -0.00918 -0.01238 -0.00998 -0.0092 N/A
11 4 3896 8.302 3915 9.690 3900 3896 Strain -0.00918 -0.01118 -0.00958 -0.0100 0.0011
12 5 3894 8.294 3913 9.683 3898 3894 Strain -0.01238 -0.01397 -0.01238 -0.0129 0.0009
13 6 3891 8.292 3911 9.678 3895 3891 Strain -0.01318 -0.01597 -0.01318 -0.0141 0.0016
14 7 3890 8.280 3910 9.673 3894 3890 Strain -0.01797 -0.01796 -0.01637 -0.0174 0.0009
21 14 3884 8.262 3904 9.661 3889 3884 Strain -0.02516 -0.02276 -0.02316 -0.0237 0.0013
28 21 3881 8.251 3901 9.643 3886 3881 Strain -0.02955 -0.02994 -0.02875 -0.0294 0.0006
35 28 3877 8.239 3896 9.639 3881 3877 Strain -0.03434 -0.03154 -0.03154 -0.0325 0,0016
49 42 3873 8.232 3892 9.630 3877 3873 Strain -0.03714 -0.03513 -0.03434 -0.0355 0.0014
63 56 3870 8.240 3889 9.630 3874 9.790 Strain -0.03394 -0.03513 -0.03434 #N/A N/A
77 70 3868 8.227 3887 9.625 3873 9.781 Strain -0.03913 -0.03713 -0.03793 -0.0381 0.0010
91 84 3865 8.226 3884 9.625 3870 9.783 Strain -0.03953 -0.03713 -0.03713 -0.0379 0.0014
Note: Red values were neglected in calculations, and (*) indicates initial CDR.
170
50MPa-40S
Specimen A Specimen B Specimen C Average
Strain
(%)
Age
(days)
Days of
Drying GL(mm) = 250.19 GL(mm) = 250.27 GL(mm) = 250.32 STD
Mass (g) CDR(mm) Mass (g) CDR(mm) Mass (g) CDR(mm)
1 4063 5.667 4046 5.253 4003 6.177
7 0 4086 *5.682 4068 *5.266 4024 *6.190
Strain 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.0000 0
7 + 0 4083 5.674 4066 5.260 4022 6.189 Strain -0.00320 -0.00240 -0.00040 -0.0020 0.0014
7 + 0 4082 5.673 4064 5.260 4020 6.185 Strain -0.00360 -0.00240 -0.00200 -0.0027 0.0008
7 + 0 4080 5.675 4062 5.259 4018 6.185 Strain -0.00280 -0.00280 -0.00200 -0.0025 0.0005
7+120 0 4079 5.679 4061 5.260 4017 6.185 Strain -0.00120 -0.00240 -0.00200 #N/A N/A
8 1 4066 5.671 4048 5.256 4005 6.177 Strain -0.00440 -0.00400 -0.00519 -0.0045 0.0006
9 2 4061 5.664 4044 5.249 4000 6.173
Strain -0.00719 -0.00679 -0.00679 -0.0069 0.0002
10 3 4058 5.652 4040 5.240 3996 6.165
Strain -0.01199 -0.01039 -0.00999 -0.0108 0.0011
11 4 4056 5.649 4038 5.236 3994 6.160 Strain -0.01319 -0.01199 -0.01198 -0.0124 0.0007
12 5 4054 5.638 4036 5.232 3993 6.155 Strain -0.01759 -0.01359 -0.01398 -0.0151 0.0022
13 6 4053 5.633 4035 5.224 3991 6.147 Strain -0.01959 -0.01678 -0.01718 -0.0178 0.0015
14 7 4052 5.627 4034 5.218 3990 6.142 Strain -0.02198 -0.01918 -0.01918 -0.0201 0.0016
21 14 4047 5.607 4028 5.200 3985 6.120 Strain -0.02998 -0.02637 -0.02796 -0.0281 0.0018
28 21 4044 5.604 4026 5.195 3982 6.116 Strain -0.03118 -0.02837 -0.02956 -0.0297 0.0014
35 28 4042 5.597 4024 5.186 3980 6.111 Strain -0.03397 -0.03197 -0.03156 -0.0325 0.0013
49 42 4036 5.622 4018 5.183 3974 6.120 Strain -0.02398 -0.03316 -0.02796 -0.0332 N/A
63 56 4033 5.591 4015 5.184 3972 6.103 Strain -0.03637 -0.03276 -0.03476 -0.0346 0.0018
77 70 4032 5.603 4014 5.183 3970 6.109 Strain -0.03158 -0.03316 -0.03236 #N/A N/A
91 84 4029 5.583 4011 5.175 3967 6.097 Strain -0.03957 -0.03636 -0.03715 -0.0377 0.0017
Note: Red values were neglected in calculations, and (*) indicates initial CDR.
171
50MPa-SRA
Specimen A Specimen B Specimen C Average
Strain
(%)
Age
(days)
Days of
Drying GL(mm) = 250.44 GL(mm) = 250.27 GL(mm) = 250.32 STD
Mass (g) CDR(mm) Mass (g) CDR(mm) Mass (g) CDR(mm)
1 4021 7.423 3973 6.709 3995 7.624
7 0 4042 *7.410 3993 *6.700 4016 *7.617 Strain 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.0000 0
7 + 0 4038 7.411 3989 6.698 4013 7.617 Strain 0.00040 -0.00080 0.00000 -0.0001 0.0006
7 + 0 4036 7.407 3988 6.697 4011 7.615 Strain -0.00120 -0.00120 -0.00080 -0.0011 0.0002
7 + 0 4035 7.407 3986 6.698 4009 7.614 Strain -0.00120 -0.00080 -0.00120 -0.0011 0.0002
7+120 0 4033 7.411 3985 6.699 4007 7.616 Strain 0.00040 -0.00040 -0.00040 -0.0004 N/A
8 1 4018 7.411 3969 6.701 3992 7.616 Strain 0.00040 0.00040 -0.00040 -0.0004 N/A
9 2 4012 7.402 3964 6.692 3987 7.606
Strain -0.00319 -0.00320 -0.00439 -0.0036 0.0007
10 3 4009 7.399 3961 6.685 3984 7.600
Strain -0.00439 -0.00599 -0.00679 -0.0057 0.0012
11 4 4007 7.394 3959 6.682 3981 7.598 Strain -0.00639 -0.00719 -0.00759 -0.0071 0.0006
12 5 4006 7.382 3957 6.670 3980 7.584 Strain -0.01118 -0.01199 -0.01318 #N/A N/A
13 6 4004 7.386 3956 6.674 3979 7.588 Strain -0.00958 -0.01039 -0.01159 -0.0105 0.0010
14 7 4003 7.382 3955 6.668 3977 7.583 Strain -0.01118 -0.01279 -0.01358 -0.0125 0.0012
21 14 3996 7.359 3948 6.646 3970 7.561 Strain -0.02036 -0.02158 -0.02237 -0.0214 0.0010
28 21 3993 7.359 3945 6.645 3967 7.562 Strain -0.02036 -0.02198 -0.02197 #N/A N/A
30 23 7.354 6.639 7.552 Strain -0.02236 -0.02437 -0.02597 -0.0242 0.0018
35 28 3988 7.347 3940 6.633 3962 7.549 Strain -0.02516 -0.02677 -0.02717 -0.0264 0.0011
49 42 3983 7.358 3934 6.634 3956 7.552 Strain -0.02076 -0.02637 -0.02597 #N/A N/A
63 56 3981 7.340 3932 6.623 3954 7.541 Strain -0.02795 -0.03077 -0.03036 -0.0297 0.0015
77 70 3979 7.337 3930 6.621 3952 7.536 Strain -0.02915 -0.03157 -0.03236 -0.0310 0.0017
91 84 3976 7.343 3928 6.622 3949 7.539 Strain -0.02675 -0.03117 -0.03116 -0.0312 N/A
Note: Red values were neglected in calculations, and (*) indicates initial CDR.
172
50MPa-LWA
Specimen A Specimen B Specimen C Average
Strain
(%)
Age
(days)
Days of
Drying GL(mm) = 250.00 GL(mm) = 250.00 GL(mm) = 250.00 STD
Mass (g) CDR(mm) Mass (g) CDR(mm) Mass (g) CDR(mm)
1 3882 3.747 3877 3.890 3900 3.326
7 0 3899 *3.776 3894 *3.917 3918 *3.342
Strain 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.0000 0
7 + 0 Strain #N/A N/A
7 + 0 3894 3.767 3889 3.913 3913 3.338 Strain -0.00360 -0.00160 -0.00160 -0.0023 0.0012
7 + 0 Strain #N/A N/A
7+120 0 3890 3.766 3886 3.909 3909 3.334 Strain -0.00400 -0.00320 -0.00320 -0.0035 0.0005
8 1 3858 3.769 3852 3.910 3875 3.337 Strain -0.00280 -0.00280 -0.00200 -0.0025 0.0005
9 2 3846 3.762 3841 3.906 3863 3.332
Strain -0.00560 -0.00440 -0.00400 -0.0047 0.0008
10 3 3841 3.754 3835 3.902 3858 3.328
Strain -0.00880 -0.00600 -0.00560 -0.0068 0.0017
11 4 Strain #N/A N/A
12 5 Strain #N/A N/A
13 6 3832 3.749 3826 3.895 3848 3.321 Strain -0.01080 -0.00880 -0.00840 -0.0093 0.0013
14 7 3830 3.753 3824 3.889 3847 3.323 Strain -0.00920 -0.01120 -0.00760 -0.0093 0.0018
21 14 3821 3.742 3815 3.883 3837 3.315 Strain -0.01360 -0.01360 -0.01080 -0.0127 0.0016
28 21 3815 3.735 3809 3.878 3832 3.308 Strain -0.01640 -0.01560 -0.01360 -0.0152 0.0014
35 28 3811 3.735 3805 3.889 3827 3.311 Strain -0.01640 -0.01120 -0.01240 -0.0164 N/A
49 42 3807 3.729 3800 3.867 3826 3.301 Strain -0.01880 -0.02000 -0.01640 -0.0184 0.0018
63 56 3804 3.718 3797 3.861 3820 3.290 Strain -0.02320 -0.02240 -0.02080 -0.0221 0.0012
77 70 3801 3.712 3795 3.860 3817 3.285 Strain -0.02560 -0.02280 -0.02280 -0.0237 0.0016
91 84 3800 3.709 3793 3.857 3815 3.277 Strain -0.02680 -0.02400 -0.02600 -0.0256 0.0025
Note: Red values were neglected in calculations, and (*) indicates initial CDR.
173
50MPa-Bld
Specimen A Specimen B Specimen C Average
Strain
(%)
Age
(days)
Days of
Drying GL(mm) = 248.92 GL(mm) = 248.92 GL(mm) = 248.92 STD
Mass (g) CDR(mm) Mass (g) CDR(mm) Mass (g) CDR(mm)
1 4068 3.820 4088 2.950 4078 4.585
7 0 4076 *3.831 4099 *2.954 4087 *4.594
Strain 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.0000 0
7 + 0 Strain #N/A N/A
7 + 0 4073 3.829 4093 2.953 4084 4.593 Strain -0.00080 -0.00040 -0.00040 -0.0005 0.0002
7 + 0 Strain #N/A N/A
7+120 0 4071 3.827 4093 2.950 4082 4.593 Strain -0.00161 -0.00161 -0.00040 -0.0012 0.0007
8 1 4060 3.812 4081 2.933 4070 4.578 Strain -0.00763 -0.00844 -0.00643 -0.0075 0.0010
9 2 4056 3.798 4077 2.922 4067 4.564
Strain -0.01326 -0.01286 -0.01205 -0.0127 0.0006
10 3 4054 3.792 4075 2.916 4065 4.560
Strain -0.01567 -0.01527 -0.01366 -0.0149 0.0011
11 4 Strain #N/A N/A
12 5 Strain #N/A N/A
13 6 4049 3.778 4070 2.910 4060 4.541 Strain -0.02129 -0.01768 -0.02129 -0.0201 0.0021
14 7 4049 3.769 4070 2.903 4060 4.535 Strain -0.02491 -0.02049 -0.02370 -0.0230 0.0023
21 14 4045 3.764 4066 2.890 4056 4.528 Strain -0.02692 -0.02571 -0.02651 -0.0264 0.0006
28 21 4042 3.764 4063 2.903 4053 4.523 Strain -0.02692 -0.02049 -0.02852 -0.0277 N/A
35 28 4043 3.743 4063 2.867 4053 4.510 Strain -0.03535 -0.03495 -0.03375 #N/A N/A
49 42 4040 3.753 4062 2.883 4052 4.518 Strain -0.03134 -0.02852 -0.03053 -0.0301 0.0015
63 56 4039 3.753 4059 2.874 5050 4.518 Strain -0.03134 -0.03214 -0.03053 -0.0313 0.0008
77 70 4037 3.750 4058 2.880 4049 4.517 Strain -0.03254 -0.02973 -0.03093 -0.0311 0.0014
91 84 4036 3.752 4057 2.879 4048 4.519 Strain -0.03174 -0.03013 -0.03013 -0.0307 0.0009
Note: Red values were neglected in calculations, and (*) indicates initial CDR.
174
Appendix R Experimental Results for Autogenous/Thermal Shrinkage
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
Appendix S Experimental Values for Restrained Shrinkage
183
35MPa-Con Day
(s)
Gauge
#1
Gauge
#2
Gauge
#3
Gauge
#4
Gauge
#5
Gauge
#6
Gauge
#7
Gauge
#8
Mean Standard
Deviation
1 2.66 4.17 2.66 3.03 -4.93 -4.55 -13.28 -3.79 -1.75 6.00
3 -36.79 -36.79 -36.79 -35.27 -43.62 -45.52 -48.17 -44.38 -40.92 5.01
7 -73.20 -74.34 -73.20 -71.31 -81.55 -83.07 -79.27 -82.69 -77.33 4.82
14 -100.5 -101.3 -101.3 -96.3 -110.0 -110.4 -96.0 -109.6 -103.2 6.01
21 -114.6 -113.8 -114.2 -109.2 -122.5 -123.3 -95.2 -122.9 -114.5 9.35
28 -124.8 -122.9 -123.7 -118.7 -132.0 -132.8 -96.7 -132.8 -123.0 11.85
50MPa-Con Day
(s)
Gauge #1 Gauge #2 Gauge #3 Gauge #4 Gauge #5 Gauge #6 Mean Standard
Deviation
1 -37.93 -31.86 -26.55 -25.41 -39.07 -41.34 -33.69 6.76
3 -90.27 -81.17 -76.62 -73.20 -94.82 -95.20 -85.22 9.51
7 -135.41 -121.75 -114.17 -107.72 -134.65 -136.93 -125.11 12.41
14 -158.55 -142.62 -134.27 -124.79 -155.89 -156.65 -145.46 13.90
21 -166.89 -150.20 -141.48 -131.24 -163.86 -163.10 -152.79 14.33
27.76 -169.93 -154.37 -146.03 -134.27 -167.65 -166.13 -156.40 14.18
50MPa-Ret Day
(s)
Gauge
#1
Gauge
#2
Gauge
#3
Gauge
#4
Gauge
#5
Gauge
#6
Gauge
#7
Mean Standard
Deviation
1 0.00 -1.52 -4.17 -8.72 -9.10 -11.00 -13.28 -6.83 4.99
3 -70.17 -69.03 -66.76 -65.24 -65.62 -76.24 -75.10 -69.74 4.43
7 -109.62 -111.13 -109.24 -103.55 -101.65 -117.96 -117.96 -110.16 6.32
14 -130.86 -132.75 -135.79 -125.55 -119.10 -149.82 -144.13 -134.00 10.50
21 -142.62 -143.00 -150.20 -134.65 -128.20 -160.06 -155.51 -144.89 11.28
28 -148.31 -147.55 -157.79 -139.58 -131.62 -165.37 -160.82 -150.15 12.04
50MPa-40S Day (s) Gauge #1 Gauge #2 Gauge #3 Gauge #4 Mean Standard
Deviation
1 -22.38 -20.10 -15.55 5.31 -13.18 12.65
3 -66.76 -68.27 -58.41 -43.62 -59.27 11.30
7 -103.93 -108.48 -94.82 -88.00 -98.81 9.17
14 -130.86 -135.79 -120.62 -122.89 -127.54 7.04
21 -141.10 -144.13 -128.96 -133.13 -136.83 7.00
28 -146.79 -149.06 -133.51 -136.17 -141.38 7.69
184
50MPa-SRA Day (s) Gauge #1 Gauge #2 Gauge #3 Gauge #4 Mean Standard
Deviation
1 -3.79 -10.62 -9.48 -8.34 -8.06 2.99
3 -41.72 -51.58 -47.03 -43.24 -45.90 4.40
7 -80.41 -88.00 -82.69 -75.10 -81.55 5.35
14 -108.10 -112.65 -106.96 -99.76 -106.87 5.34
21 -121.00 -123.27 -117.96 -110.38 -118.15 5.62
28 -129.34 -129.34 -124.79 -116.07 -124.88 6.26
50MPa-LWA Day
(s)
Gauge #1 Gauge #2 Gauge #3 Gauge #4 Gauge #5 Gauge #6 Mean Standard
Deviation
1 9.86 8.34 6.45 3.79 2.66 3.41 5.75 2.93
3 -9.48 -9.48 -7.97 -4.93 -4.17 -6.45 -7.08 2.27
7 -14.41 -15.17 -12.90 -7.21 -7.97 -12.52 -11.70 3.34
14 -21.24 -18.96 -19.34 -14.41 -14.03 -21.24 -18.21 3.23
21 -25.03 -23.52 -22.76 -17.07 -17.07 -26.55 -22.00 4.04
28 -29.96 -28.45 -27.31 -22.00 -23.14 -32.24 -27.18 3.95
50MPa-Bld Day
(s)
Gauge #1 Gauge #2 Gauge #3 Gauge #4 Gauge #5 Gauge #6 Mean Standard
Deviation
1 -25.79 -44.00 -38.69 -36.79 -34.14 -39.07 -36.41 6.13
3 -66.76 -92.17 -87.62 -77.76 -80.03 -96.34 -83.45 10.79
7 -103.55 -129.34 -124.79 -116.07 -119.86 -143.37 -122.83 13.38
14 -121.38 -148.31 -146.79 -137.31 -139.96 -165.75 -143.25 14.62
21 -125.93 -151.34 -152.10 -141.86 -143.37 -170.68 -147.55 14.75
28 -132.00 -155.89 -156.27 -147.55 -147.55 -175.62 -152.48 14.35
